Hi Manav, Les and others,
Happy Holidays!
The solution below makes perfect sense to me!
Best regards,
Mach
From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Manav Bhatia
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 8:32 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org;
Hi,
I have read the document and think it's useful, so I support the adoption.
Best regards,
Mach
From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Reshad Rahman
(rrahman)
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 8:03 PM
To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org; draft-mahesh-bfd-authenticat...@ietf.org
Subject:
Hi Greg and all,
I just have quick review on the drafts. If my understanding is correct, the
idea is to use multicast destination address other than unicast address when
sending BFD packets over LAG links. And actually this idea has been proposed in
Hi Greg,
Thanks for the invitation, I am glad to join and continue the work.
Best regards,
Mach
From: Gregory Mirsky [gregory.mir...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 20:42
To: Mach Chen; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; m...@ietf.org
Cc: draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd
Hi Greg,
Thanks for sharing this information!
Best regards,
Mach
发件人: Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2017年7月17日 15:34
收件人: Mach Chen
抄送: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
主题: Re: A question about RFC5884
Hi Mach, et. al,
I recall that this question was discussed some time ago
as described in RFC5884.
BTW, RFC5884 does not specify which reply mode will be used :)
Best regards,
Mach
From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpign...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 6:58 AM
To: Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
Cc: Mach Chen; Ashesh Mishra; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re
Hi Jeff,
I have read the draft, it's useful draft. I support the adoption.
Best regards,
Mach
> -Original Message-
> From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 9:16 PM
> To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
> Subject: Adoption call for
Yes/support
Best regards,
Mach
> -Original Message-
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:l...@pi.nu]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 6:53 AM
> To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
> Cc: mpls-cha...@ietf.org
> Subject: MPLS wg aoption poll on on draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd
>
> BFD Working Group ,
>
> The
Hi Jeff,
Huawei's implementation only used dedicated Multicast MAC (when we proposed
RFC7130), and did not support the optional behavior. There should be no change
since then.
Best regards,
Mach
From: Rtg-bfd On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 8:52 PM
To: Reshad
Hi all,
I read the latest version of the draft, it’s well written and easy to read. I
think it’s useful solution and ready to move forward.
Some nits:
- It’s better to expand the abbreviations (e.g., MTU, PDU, etc.) when
first use.
- s/path MTU/Path MTU (PMTU) when first
Jeff,
OK, it’s fine that either you or the RFC Editor will make change.
Best regards,
Mach
From: Jeffrey Haas
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 4:58 AM
To: Mach Chen
Cc: Reshad Rahman ; BFD WG
Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets
Mach,
Thanks for the comment.
I believe it's
Hi Reshad,
As an co-author of draft-ietf-bfd-stability, I am not aware of any IPR that
applies to the draft.
Best regards,
Mach
From: Reshad Rahman
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 9:30 AM
To: BFD WG
Cc: draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numb...@ietf.org;
12 matches
Mail list logo
