From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 10 04:12:52 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fdjnz-0000Yi-HM; Wed, 10 May 2006 04:12:23 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fdjny-0000Yd-1V for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 04:12:22 -0400 Received: from radmail1.rad.co.il ([62.0.23.193] helo=antivir1.rad.co.il) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fdjnv-0000oR-3u for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 04:12:22 -0400 Received: from antivir1.rad.co.il (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivir1.rad.co.il (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k4A875LZ029800 for ; Wed, 10 May 2006 11:07:05 +0300 (IDT) Received: from exrad3.ad.rad.co.il (exrad2 [192.114.24.112]) by antivir1.rad.co.il (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k4A875Ti029797 for ; Wed, 10 May 2006 11:07:05 +0300 (IDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C67411.E9BEBD5D" Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 11:12:51 +0200 Message-ID: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D1B7934@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BFD for PW Fault Detection (VCCV) Thread-Index: AcZ0EenhHLOG3k4BQ3eRVUYFU3QSmA== From: "Oren Geron" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 Subject: BFD for PW Fault Detection (VCCV) X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C67411.E9BEBD5D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable One of the PWE3 VCCV options is to use the BFD as a fault detection = tool. If I understand correctly, when using PWE3 VCCV, the BFD packets should = be UDP/IP packets. What is the use of the UDP/IP encapsulation?=20 Why can't it be a Control Word (PW Associated Channel Header with 0001 = as first nibble) followed by the BFD Packet ?=20 With regards,=20 Oren Geron. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C67411.E9BEBD5D Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable BFD for PW Fault Detection (VCCV)

One of = the PWE3 VCCV options is to use the BFD as a fault detection = tool.

If I = understand correctly, when using PWE3 VCCV, the BFD packets should be = UDP/IP packets.

What is = the use of the UDP/IP encapsulation?

Why = can't it be a Control Word (PW Associated Channel Header  with 0001 = as first nibble) followed by the BFD Packet ?

With = regards,

        Oren Geron.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C67411.E9BEBD5D-- From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 11 14:46:50 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FeGB4-0007DQ-IW; Thu, 11 May 2006 14:46:22 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FeGB2-0007DC-Ab; Thu, 11 May 2006 14:46:20 -0400 Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FeGAy-0007Uz-0j; Thu, 11 May 2006 14:46:20 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 May 2006 14:46:16 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.05,116,1146456000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="88381459:sNHT42168408" Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k4BIkFvF019686; Thu, 11 May 2006 14:46:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 11 May 2006 14:46:15 -0400 Received: from [10.86.162.238] ([10.86.162.238]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 11 May 2006 14:46:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D1B7934@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il> References: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D1B7934@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-3--585226518 Message-Id: <468321A3-3A9F-46FE-92B7-FA3D4D4F5B23@cisco.com> From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 14:46:21 -0400 To: "Oren Geron" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.749.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2006 18:46:14.0997 (UTC) FILETIME=[2E730050:01C6752B] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17 Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org, "pwe3 \(E-mail\) WG" Subject: Re: BFD for PW Fault Detection (VCCV) X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org --Apple-Mail-3--585226518 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > One of the PWE3 VCCV options is to use the BFD as a fault detection > tool. > > If I understand correctly, when using PWE3 VCCV, the BFD packets > should be UDP/IP packets. Its basically a UDP/IP behind the PW header. > What is the use of the UDP/IP encapsulation? > > Why can't it be a Control Word (PW Associated Channel Header with > 0001 as first nibble) followed by the BFD Packet ? I have an update of the draft coming out with some clarifications, but in essence, you use the same packet format as the other VCCV payloads. --tom > > With regards, > > Oren Geron. > --Apple-Mail-3--585226518 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

One of = the PWE3 VCCV options is to use the BFD as a fault detection = tool.

If I understand correctly, when using PWE3 = VCCV, the BFD packets should be UDP/IP = packets.

Its=A0 basically a UDP/IP behind = the PW header.

What is = the use of the UDP/IP encapsulation?

Why = can't it be a Control Word (PW Associated Channel Header=A0 with 0001 as = first nibble) followed by the BFD Packet = ?

I have an update of the draft = coming out with some clarifications, but
in essence, you use = the same packet format as the other VCCV payloads.

= --tom


=

With regards,

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Oren = Geron.

=

= --Apple-Mail-3--585226518-- From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 11 15:29:48 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FeGr2-0001F9-Bw; Thu, 11 May 2006 15:29:44 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FeGr0-0001Ec-RK for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 11 May 2006 15:29:42 -0400 Received: from test-iport-3.cisco.com ([171.71.176.78]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FeGqz-00018H-Gw for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 11 May 2006 15:29:42 -0400 Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by test-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 May 2006 12:29:41 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k4BJTer7025696; Thu, 11 May 2006 12:29:40 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k4BJTdB9013074; Thu, 11 May 2006 12:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 11 May 2006 15:29:39 -0400 Received: from SwallowPB.local ([161.44.74.167]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 11 May 2006 15:29:39 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by SwallowPB.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2331E4787; Thu, 11 May 2006 15:30:28 -0400 (EDT) To: Oren Geron In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 10 May 2006 17:28:25 CDT." From: George Swallow X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.3; nmh 1.1-RC3; GNU Emacs 21.2.1 Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 15:30:27 -0400 Message-Id: <20060511193028.1D2331E4787@SwallowPB.local> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2006 19:29:39.0358 (UTC) FILETIME=[3EC4F3E0:01C67531] DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1671; t=1147375780; x=1148239780; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=swallow@cisco.com; z=From:George=20Swallow=20 |Subject:Re=3A=20FW=3A=20BFD=20for=20PW=20Fault=20Detection=20(VCCV)=20; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3Df1MxIHp0yA9Yc0lfe2+lQAP/6xc=3D; b=AZJHPUNKdIuVoChr1gvYr44KqO5vVeShkwC5EviRb0hdAuxoDJ90cGsA9Bdt8skwfMJT4QUl G+CK0eX17ZnbU7TlUez+EmdjcPDWkyxrB+vChWsAQXZBS0yasYNg86wm; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3.cisco.com; header.From=swallow@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 Cc: tnadeau@cisco.com, rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: FW: BFD for PW Fault Detection (VCCV) X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Oren - > If I understand correctly, when using PWE3 VCCV, the BFD packets should be > UDP/IP packets. > > What is the use of the UDP/IP encapsulation? When we started this, the "Channel Type" field was just going to use PPP code-points. The Control Channel is supposed to be able to multiplex traffic. So the UDP part was certainly necessary. For certain MPLS Ping/Trace functions the IP addresses are also useful. When I proposed using BFD I suggested getting a PPP code point that meant "UDP" so that you could skip the IP header when it wasn't needed. I didn't get a lot of support for the idea and ran into some opposition. The opposition came from two directions. OAM wonks who were worried about the 1 in a zillion chance that a BFD packet from some other router happens to arrive with a label that matches a valid PW label and has the right discriminators. (I don't know how such people get any sleep at all!) The other came from the PPP side who just said to use PW header compression. Now that the "Channel Type" field has it's own IANA space, we could probably get a codepoint for BFD and do just what you want. The one fly in the ointment is that PW stitching could make it harder to identify the true source making that one in a zillion a mere one in a billion or so. If you really want something then you should raise it on the PW list. ...George ======================================================================== George Swallow Cisco Systems (978) 936-1398 1414 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, MA 01719 From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 11 15:54:58 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FeHFM-0002At-C3; Thu, 11 May 2006 15:54:52 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FeHFL-0002Ao-2e for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 11 May 2006 15:54:51 -0400 Received: from borg.juniper.net ([207.17.137.119]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FeHFK-0002L1-RI for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 11 May 2006 15:54:51 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO alpha.jnpr.net) ([172.24.18.126]) by borg.juniper.net with ESMTP; 11 May 2006 12:54:50 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.05,116,1146466800"; d="scan'208"; a="549912814:sNHT20662360" Received: from sapphire.juniper.net ([172.17.28.108]) by alpha.jnpr.net over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 11 May 2006 12:54:50 -0700 Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 12:54:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Rahul Aggarwal To: Oren Geron In-Reply-To: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D1B7934@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il> Message-ID: <20060511125214.R54979@sapphire.juniper.net> References: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D1B7934@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2006 19:54:50.0166 (UTC) FILETIME=[C347F560:01C67534] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: BFD for PW Fault Detection (VCCV) X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Hi Oren, On Wed, 10 May 2006, Oren Geron wrote: > One of the PWE3 VCCV options is to use the BFD as a fault detection tool. > If I understand correctly, when using PWE3 VCCV, the BFD packets should be UDP/IP packets. > What is the use of the UDP/IP encapsulation? Here are the advantages: - It keeps BFD over PWs encaps to be as close to the generic BFD over MPLS encaps as possible. Look at draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-02.txt [Soon to be refreshed]. - It allows retaining information of the PW source. The IP source address adds robustness and enables checking a BFD over MPLS packet to be from the expected source. - Of course, to send BFD directly in a PWACH packet we would need to define a new "channel type" (presently RFC 4385 only defines 0x21 of IPv4 and 0x57 for IPv6). Further LSP-Ping for PWs uses an IP/UDP header as well. So why deviate for BFD ? rahul > Why can't it be a Control Word (PW Associated Channel Header with 0001 as first nibble) followed by the BFD Packet ? > > With regards, > Oren Geron. > From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Tue May 30 01:14:44 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FkwYc-0003Rt-Vs; Tue, 30 May 2006 01:14:18 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FkwYb-0003Ro-OE for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Tue, 30 May 2006 01:14:17 -0400 Received: from web53814.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.39.58]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FkwYY-00069b-4h for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Tue, 30 May 2006 01:14:17 -0400 Received: (qmail 40647 invoked by uid 60001); 30 May 2006 05:14:13 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=P5ezzTvBh6Ru0hVnsO5LzzqP+IkQN1RBpjWtVUiPxnJ/0k9lnpJg4774t650f5Odkyug0AXB2uCfolH93hLEl2IOagVoTHr9GQADNvX5wqcQLRnw896GWafBRkVKaGalRS1Kl7f6rkLhR9FhEvyfZlZiJa4o4jmC8h/t0d7W2ZM= ; Message-ID: <20060530051413.40645.qmail@web53814.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [59.144.31.146] by web53814.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 30 May 2006 06:14:13 BST Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 06:14:13 +0100 (BST) From: "Dr. Soumitra Sinha Roy" To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Subject: Regarding Demultiplexing of BFD Control Packets X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Sir, In draft-ietf-bfd-base-04.txt Sec 6.3 (Page 18), It is mentioned that " Once the remote end echoes back the local administrator, all further received packets are demultiplexed based on the Your duscriminator field only(which means that, among other things , the source address field can change, or the interface over which the packets are recived can change, but the packets will still be associated with proper session.)" Does this mean that Suppose we have two routers RT1 and RT2. A session is established between Rt1 and Rt2 at I1 interface.My Discriminator for RT1 At I1 is X. My Discriminator for Rt2 is Y at Interface I1.and session state for Rt2 is init.Now, If I send a packet at I2 interface of RT1 with Your Discriminator as Y(My.Discriminator of Rt2 at I1) and My. Discriminator = X , then Rt2 will send a BFD Packet with session state 3 at Interface I1. With Regards, Murti ___________________________________________________________ Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick, easy and free. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/trueswitch2.html