clarification.
>>
>>B) What is the destination IP address of the p2mp BFD control packet? Is
>>it 224.0.0.18 or FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:12, then IPv4 and IPv6 multicast
>>addresses for VRRP? If so, this should be made explicit.
>>
>>C) Again, a state machine description wou
s; co...@doch.org.uk; Aditya Dogra (addogra)
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02.txt
Greg,
Thanks. Those clarifications seem reasonable.
Draft authors,
I do have another general comment about the current text of the draft. The
current text discusses two different appro
egory Mirsky; Jeff Haas; co...@doch.org.uk<mailto:co...@doch.org.uk>;
Aditya Dogra (addogra)
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02.txt
Nitish and co-authors,
I have read this draft and have several comments below. In general, I prefer
that authors address
age-
From: Chris Bowers [mailto:cbow...@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 11:54 AM
To: Nitish Gupta (nitisgup); rtgwg@ietf.org; rtg-...@ietf.org
Cc: Gregory Mirsky; Jeff Haas; co...@doch.org.uk; Aditya Dogra (addogra)
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-nitish-vrrp-b
o...@doch.org.uk<mailto:co...@doch.org.uk>"
mailto:co...@doch.org.uk>>,
"rtg-...@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>"
mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>,
"rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>" mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: New Version
> On Jan 20, 2016, at 12:32 AM, Nitish Gupta (nitisgup)
> wrote:
>
> 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 c
help readers and future
>implementers understand exactly what is intended.
>
>Thanks,
>Chris
>
>-Original Message-----
>From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nitish Gupta
>(nitisgup)
>Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:31 AM
>To: rtgwg@ietf.org;
Jeff Haas mailto:jh...@juniper.net>>;
rtg-...@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>; Aditya Dogra (addogra)
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-niti
nal Message-
>From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nitish Gupta
>(nitisgup)
>Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 11:31 AM
>To: rtgwg@ietf.org; rtg-...@ietf.org
>Cc: jh...@juniper.net; co...@doch.org.uk; Aditya Dogra (addogra)
>Subject: Re: New Version Noti
rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nitish Gupta (nitisgup)
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:31 AM
To: rtgwg@ietf.org; rtg-...@ietf.org
Cc: Gregory Mirsky ; Jeff Haas
; co...@doch.org.uk; Aditya Dogra (addogra)
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02.txt
[Wearing my BFD co-chair hat.]
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 06:38:40PM +, Chris Bowers wrote:
> 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 defi
anuary 17, 2016 10:11 PM
> To: Nitish Gupta (nitisgup) mailto:nitis...@cisco.com>>
> Cc: Jeff Haas mailto:jh...@juniper.net>>;
> rtg-...@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>; Aditya Dogra (addogra)
> mailto:addo...@cisco.com>>; co...@doch.org.uk
> <mailto:c
lt;mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>"
mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>, "Aditya Dogra (addogra)"
mailto:addo...@cisco.com>>, Routing WG
mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02.txt
Mahesh,
As I understand it, the authors e
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)
mailto:nitis...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi,
We have submitted a new vers
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)
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We have submitted a new version of the draft. As discussed in IETF 93 at
> prague.
>
>
-
From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nitish Gupta
(nitisgup)
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 11:31 AM
To: rtgwg@ietf.org; rtg-...@ietf.org
Cc: jh...@juniper.net; co...@doch.org.uk; Aditya Dogra (addogra)
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02.txt
Hi,
We had presented the Draft for VRRP BFD integration in IETF 93 and we had
taken care of all the comments that came as part of the WG meeting.
We had also merged the two drafts as per the comments in IETF 93:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-01
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
17 matches
Mail list logo
