Hi all,
IMHO, the point is not about whether the Echo Reply is optional for a normal
LSP Ping, where the echo reply is totally controlled by the reply mode.
For RFC5884, since the reply mode is not specified, based on the current text,
it can be interpreted as the following two ways:
1) i
Indeed, I also like Les’s suggestion!
Best regards,
Mach
From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Pignataro
(cpignata)
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 10:20 PM
To: Balaji Rajagopalan ; Greg Mirsky
; Jeffrey Haas
Cc: Kireeti Kompella ; Thomas Nadeau
; rtg-bfd@ietf.o
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 draft
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 MP
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 Rahman
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 use
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'
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;
draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authenticat...@iet
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 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; draft-ietf-bfd-seamle
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
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-bfd
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 BFDers,
We met a multi-vendor interoperate issue recently, it's about whether an Echo
reply is necessary.
In Section 6 of RFC5884, 2nd paragraph
"... The egress LSR MAY respond with an LSP Ping Echo
reply message that carries the local discriminator assigned by it for
the BFD session."
Hi Ashesh,
Thanks for your prompt response, we're on the same page!
Best regards,
Mach
> -邮件原件-
> 发件人: Ashesh Mishra [mailto:mishra.ash...@outlook.com]
> 发送时间: 2017年7月16日 22:26
> 收件人: Mach Chen
> 抄送: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
> 主题: Re: A question about RFC5884
&g
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 and the
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: A
Hi Carlos,
Do you suggest to do a 5884-bis?
Best regards,
Mach
From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpign...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 10:56 PM
To: Mach Chen
Cc: Reshad Rahman (rrahman); Ashesh Mishra; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: A question about RFC5884
Hi Mach,
On Jul 17
Hi Carlos,
OK, thanks for the clarification!
Best regards,
Mach
From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpign...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 6:26 PM
To: Mach Chen
Cc: Reshad Rahman (rrahman); rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: A question about RFC5884
Hi Mach,
I had not suggested it
18 matches
Mail list logo
