Hi Sasha,
Please see inline... Original From: AlexanderVainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com> To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>;肖敏10093570; Cc: Abhinav Srivastava <absri...@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd@ietf.org <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Date: 2023年03月27日 08:55 Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Can a BFD session change its source port to facilitate auto recovery Jeff, Xiao and all, FWIW I concur with Jeff. [XM]>>> Thank you for the feedback. I might be wrong, just to make things more clear by discussing. It is not clear to me what exactly the reference to BFD for SR Policies means. E.g., if Seamless BFD (RFC 7880 and RFC 7881) is used, the reflected packets are sent as native IPv4 or IPv6 packets and can encounter problems that are not related to the state of the monitored candidate path of the SR Policy. [XM]>>> Please refer to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-spring-bfd-srv6-policy-encap/. Best Regards, Xiao Min My 2c, Sasha From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 1:29 AM To: Xiao Min <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> Cc: Abhinav Srivastava <absri...@gmail.com>; Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Can a BFD session change its source port to facilitate auto recovery Hi Xiao, please see inline On Mar 24, 2023, at 5:43 PM, <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> wrote: Jeff, Please see inline... Original From: JeffTantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> To: 肖敏10093570; Cc: absri...@gmail.com <absri...@gmail.com>;alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>;rtg-bfd@ietf.org <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Date: 2023年03月24日 16:48 Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Can a BFD session change its source port to facilitate auto recovery That’s not going to fly, number of ECMP paths in today’s networks could be anywhere between 2 and 500+, how many of these would you exercise, how would you know that you have covered all of them? [XM]>>> The number of links/LAGs seems much higher than the number of ECMP paths. If otherwise I have to run SH BFD on each link/LAG, why not try to run MH BFD on each ECMP path? :-) As to the coverage, BFD+IOAM may help, because IOAM can tell you the path BFD packet really takes. [jeff] the number of p2p connections between 2 directly attached IP end-points is rarely larger than 32 (either LAG or ECMP), SH BFD sessions are distributed across the path traversed and coherency between IP connectivity matrix and BFD sessions between any given pair of directly connected IP end-points can easily be guaranteed, end2end (MH BFD) is between non directly attached end-points and is subject to network topology and routing, and has to be re-evaluated on any change. INT doesn’t really help here, hashing decisions are local, any changes (local or global) might change the hashing results, unless you build a full mesh of source routed paths… but then, why BFD at all, you could use INT only instead, take a look at HPCC draft The role of MH BFD is to verify reachability between 2 non directly connected IP end-points, not to monitor every path available. [XM]>>> IMHO BFD for SR Policy does care about the path, and some SP's networks require bidirectional path consistency while employing BFD. [jeff] how did we get to SR here? If you have got a strict source routed path, you only need to validate that path, if it is loose however, same issues Best Regards, Xiao Min As a viable solution, run SH BFD on each link/LAG, MH BFD end2end and make sure your timers are aligned and not interact with each other in funny ways. Cheers, Jeff On Mar 24, 2023, at 09:26, xiao.m...@zte.com.cn wrote: Hi Abhinav, When I come across your problem, the first idea coming into my mind is not trying to change the source port for a BFD session, but to run multiple BFD sessions between the two peers, using each BFD session to monitor a respective ECMP path, and then the application would not be declared in failure unless all the BFD sessions go down. Best Regards, Xiao Min From: AbhinavSrivastava <absri...@gmail.com> To: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>; Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Date: 2023年03月23日 22:27 Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Can a BFD session change its source port to facilitate auto recovery Agree that deletion and recreation (possibly automatically) by associated protocol is a good alternative, instead of inbuilt BFD recovery. Thanks Abhinav On Thu, 23 Mar, 2023, 3:08 am Alexander Vainshtein, <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com> wrote: Abhinav, Jeff and all, FWIW I concur with Jeff. In my experience, MH IP BFD sessions are typically used to monitor peering between iBGP neighbors, and when the MH IP BFD session goes down, BGP treats this as if its session has gone – and deletes the MH IP BFD session in question. I.e., fast recovery of such a session will not happen until BGP would not re-create it. Regards, Sasha From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 8:27 AM To: Abhinav Srivastava <absri...@gmail.com> Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Can a BFD session change its source port to facilitate auto recovery Abhinav, Let’s clarify a couple of points. What you are trying to do is to change entropy to change local hashing outcome, however for hashing to even be relevant there has to he either ECMP or LAG in the path to the destination otherwise shortest path will be he used regardless, so statistically, some of the flows between a given pair of end points (5 tuple) will be traversing the (partially)broken link, would you really like BFD to “pretend“ that everything is just fine? Moreover, by far, in case of congestion - most applications won’t change their ports but have their TX rate reduced. There’s work done by Tom Herbert for IPv6/TCP (kernel patch upstreamed a few years ago) - had beeb presented in RTGWG pre-Covid, that on RTO changes flow label value (that some might or might not include in hashing), which is strongly not recommended to be used outside of a tightly controlled homogenous environment (think within DC). Outside of what BFD spec tells us (don’t), the above should provide enough motivation not to do this. Cheers, Jeff On Mar 23, 2023, at 05:44, Abhinav Srivastava <absri...@gmail.com> wrote: Multi-hop BFD would be the mechanism that detects the failure on the path it happens to be using for the session. I wasn't thinking of another mechanism. Detection timer expiry would be the trigger for recovery which could be augmented with few other possible criteria like how long session hasn't been able to come back up or prolonged flapping. Thanks Abhinav On Wed, 22 Mar, 2023, 3:05 pm Greg Mirsky, <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Abhinav, thank you for presenting an interesting scenario for a discussion. I have several questions to better understand it: · How the network failure that triggers the recovery process is detected? · If the failure detection mechanism is not multi-hop BFD, what is the relationship between the detection intervals of heat mechanism and the multi-hop BFD session? Regards, Greg On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 4:36 PM Abhinav Srivastava <absri...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi all, I needed clarification around whether source port can be changed for a BFD session in case of multi hop BFD. The ability to change BFD source port when BFD session goes down helps BFD session to recover if its stuck on a network path where there is some intermittent but significant packet loss. In such cases, normally without BFD, end to end application traffic would eventually settle down on a good path as applications typically change source port after experiencing disconnection or failures. But if BFD is being used to monitor some part of a path which is experiencing significant but not 100% packet loss, it will start causing next hop list of associated static route or the associated BGP sessions to start flapping forever, as BFD packets would be stuck to that partial lossy path forever (until BFD session is deleted and recreated by admin action). This may also hinder the typical application recovery strategy of changing source port on failure. Ability to dynamically change BFD source port can help BFD recover in such cases. Is this something that is allowed as per RFC? The RFC5881, section 4 (for single hop) case states that – “The source port MUST be in the range 49152 through 65535. The same UDP source port number MUST be used for all BFD Control packets associated with a particular session” Thanks Abhinav Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments. Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
