Hi Joe, thank you for your comments and suggestions that help in improving this document. Please find my notes below tagged by GIM>>. If these updates address your concerns, I will upload the new version before the deadline.
Regards, Greg On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 8:05 AM Joe Clarke via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > Reviewer: Joe Clarke > Review result: Has Issues > > I have been asked to review this document on behalf of the OPS > directorate. > This document describes the applicability of p2mp BFD to VRRPv3. It also > defines an extension to VRRPv3 to support bootstrapping a p2mp BFD > session. > For the most part, I found the document clear, but there were a couple of > issues I had describing the BFD traffic flow and operational process. > > First, in section 3, there is a statement: "The Active router, configured > to > use p2mp BFD to support faster convergence of VRRP, starts transmitting BFD > control packets with VRID as a source IP address..." I think you mean a > virtual IPvX address (or Active router IP) as the source as the VRID is > just an > 8-bit value. Below you do seem to indicate that the source should be a > virtual > IP when a Backup changes to Active. > GIM>> Thank you for pointing this out to me. I propose the following update: OLD TEXT: The Active router, configured to use p2mp BFD to support faster convergence of VRRP, starts transmitting BFD control packets with VRID as a source IP address and the locally allocated value as the value of the My Discriminator field ([RFC5880]). NEW TEXT: The Active router, configured to use p2mp BFD to support faster convergence of VRRP, starts transmitting BFD control packets with IPvX address associated with the Virtual Router [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis] as a source IP address and the locally allocated value as the value of the My Discriminator field ([RFC5880]). > Also in Section 3, there is text that reads: > > Backup router detects the failure of the Active router, it re- > evaluates its role in the VRID . As a result, the Backup router may > become the Active router of the given VRID or continue as a Backup > router. > > I feel the use of VRID here is also wrong (or at least confusing). My > understanding of VRID is just that 8-bit value for the ID of the Virtual > Router. To me it would be clearer if both instances of VRID in the text > above > were replaced with Virtual Router. > GIM>> Thank you for the suggestion. It does make it clearer. Updated as follows: OLD TEXT: When a Backup router detects the failure of the Active router, it re- evaluates its role in the VRID. As a result, the Backup router may become the Active router of the given VRID or continue as a Backup router. NEW TEXT: When a Backup router detects the failure of the Active router, it re-evaluates its role in the Virtual Router. As a result, the Backup router may become the Active router of the given Virtual Router or continue as a Backup router. > As a nit, in Section 1, you have text: > > Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880] had been > originally defined detect > > I think that should read "originally defined to detect". > GIM>> Thank you for catching this, Fixed.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
