Hi Mahesh, Thanks for your comments please see inline.
Thanks, Nitish From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, 19 January 2016 11:43 am To: Chris Bowers <cbow...@juniper.net<mailto:cbow...@juniper.net>> Cc: Nitish Gupta <nitis...@cisco.com<mailto:nitis...@cisco.com>>, Jeff Haas <jh...@juniper.net<mailto:jh...@juniper.net>>, "rtg-...@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>" <rtg-...@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>, "Aditya Dogra (addogra)" <addo...@cisco.com<mailto:addo...@cisco.com>>, "co...@doch.org.uk<mailto:co...@doch.org.uk>" <co...@doch.org.uk<mailto:co...@doch.org.uk>>, "rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>" <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02.txt Chris, Thanks for the clarification. Please cross-post the draft to rtg-bfd (as you have been doing) to make sure you get the BFD experts to review the draft. One clarification and then a question in section 3 of the document. You say that BFD requires that a session be formed by both peers. You can very well form a one way session from the VRRP Master router to your Backup router. When the Backup Router detects loss of 3 BFD packets, it can declare the Master as Down and take over as the new Master router. The question is why do you need a BFD session from the Backup router to the Master router? [nitish] I just want to clarify one point that there will be only one session between a pair of VRRP router instance for example in this case if there is only one VRRP Master and one VRRP backup Router there will be only one BFD session. Though both the devices would require to initiate BFD bootup sequence but there will be only one BFD session formed between them. As Section 3 of RFC 5881 (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop) ) mandates that the session be initiated by both the participating peers for a session to be formed between them. Hence the Backup router needs to know the Master IPVX address to initiate a BFD session. The other thing I want to make sure if there is any particular configuration requirement from a BFD YANG model perspective. I understand that you are using the fast timer in BFD to detect next-hop IP address liveliness check. We address that configuration in the BFD YANG model today. However, we have not addressed the issue of p2mp BFD configuration as yet. Depending on how that discussion proceeds we might want to look at that also. [nitish] There is no particular requirement that we can see from BFD YANG model perspective. As VRRP should interface with BFD as another protocol using BFD as a means of fast failure detection of its peer. Cheers. On Jan 18, 2016, at 10:38 AM, Chris Bowers <cbow...@juniper.net<mailto:cbow...@juniper.net>> wrote: Mahesh, As I understand it, the authors eventually want this draft to be adopted by the RTGWG. This makes sense because it includes VRRP protocol extensions, so it would normally go to the VRRP WG. Since the VRRP WG is concluded, the RTGWG is a reasonable place to do this work. One might also consider doing this work in the BFD WG to take advantage of the concentration of BFD expertise there. However, since the main content of the document deals with VRRP behavior and defining a new VRRP packet type, it seems like it might be a diversion from the main work of the BFD WG. If the RTGWG does adopt the draft, the name of the adopted draft should start with draft-ietf-rtgwg (as you point out, following RFC7221). As an individual submission at this point, there are no hard requirements on the name of the draft, except that it not start with draft-ietf. However, when authors are submitting drafts that they intend to eventually be considered for adoption by the RTGWG, it is quite useful to name them draft-authorname-rtgwg-yyyy, so that they automatically show up athttps://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rtgwg/documents/ at the bottom under the header of “Related Internet-Drafts”. Thanks, Chris From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mahesh Jethanandani Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 10:11 PM To: Nitish Gupta (nitisgup) <nitis...@cisco.com<mailto:nitis...@cisco.com>> Cc: Jeff Haas <jh...@juniper.net<mailto:jh...@juniper.net>>; rtg-...@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>; Aditya Dogra (addogra) <addo...@cisco.com<mailto:addo...@cisco.com>>; co...@doch.org.uk<mailto:co...@doch.org.uk>; rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org> Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02.txt Shouldn’t the draft be named draft-nitish-bfd-vrrp or something like that to follow the naming convention described in RFC 7221? On Oct 25, 2015, at 11:27 PM, Nitish Gupta (nitisgup) <nitis...@cisco.com<mailto:nitis...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi, We have submitted a new version of the draft. As discussed in IETF 93 at prague. We have merged the following drafts: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-01 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-bfd-p2mp-vrrp-use-case-00 We have also taken care of all the comments that were discussed in the RTGWG meeting. We welcome any comments and suggestions on the draft. Thanks, Nitish On 13/10/15 9:09 pm, "internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>" <internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>> wrote: A new version of I-D, draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Nitish Gupta and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd Revision: 02 Title: Fast failure detection in VRRP with BFD Document date: 2015-10-13 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 10 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02 Abstract: This document describes how Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) can be used to support sub-second detection of a Master Router failure in the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP). Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org/>. The IETF Secretariat Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com> Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
