Subject: [Idr] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited-00.txt

From: Enke Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 16:12:48 -0700

Hi, Folks:

Here is a proposal for "unsolicited bfd".  We (the authors) believe that
"add-path + unsolicited bfd" is a simper solution to the nexthop liveness
issue at the IXP with Route Servers.

Thanks.  -- Enke

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited-00.txt
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:57:09 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

        Title           : Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applications
        Authors         : Enke Chen
                          Naiming Shen
                          Robert Raszuk
	Filename        : draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited-00.txt
	Pages           : 6
	Date            : 2017-07-16

Abstract:
   For operational simplification of "sessionless" applications using
   BFD, in this document we present procedures for "unsolicited BFD"
   that allow a BFD session to be initiated by only one side, and be
   established without explicit per-session configuration or
   registration by the other side (subject to certain per-interface or
   per-router policies).

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited-00

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 20:45:47 -0500

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 16, 2017, at 18:12, Enke Chen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Folks:
> 

Unless I missed something one side or the other actually has to actually be configured to initiate the BFD session, otherwise two peers at an IX are perfectly willing to do BFD but there will be no active BFD sessions between them. No doubt, this is better that both sides having to configure BFD, but is not the fully automated solution that I and I think others are looking for.

I'm fine with using add-path with the IX RS, but I want automatic initiation of the BFD sessions within the IX, and a mechanism to at least prefer next-hops that are doing BFD with me, over ones that won't or aren't, if not out right ignore next-hops that won't do BFD with me.

Thanks

David Farmer

---

From: Enke Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 19:20:35 -0700

Hi, David:

For deployment I think that the only new config would be to enable the "unsolicited
bfd" feature on the interface attached to the IXP (and "ttl" check if not the default).
BFD sessions would be established with the nexthops dynamically, and without configuring
BFD peers.

Thanks.  -- Enke

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:51:10 +0200

Likewise to addresss the other point you stated BGP can be augmented to
prefer paths with validated next hops using unsolicited bfd or other test
tools.

Thx,
R

On Jul 17, 2017 04:20, "Enke Chen" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi, David:

For deployment I think that the only new config would be to enable the
"unsolicited
bfd" feature on the interface attached to the IXP (and "ttl" check if not
the default).
BFD sessions would be established with the nexthops dynamically, and
without configuring
BFD peers.

Thanks.  -- Enke

On 7/16/17 6:45 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> Unless I missed something one side or the other actually has to actually
be configured to initiate the BFD session, otherwise two peers at an IX are
perfectly willing to do BFD but there will be no active BFD sessions
between them. No doubt, this is better that both sides having to configure
BFD, but is not the fully automated solution that I and I think others are
looking for.
>
> I'm fine with using add-path with the IX RS, but I want automatic
initiation of the BFD sessions within the IX, and a mechanism to at least
prefer next-hops that are doing BFD with me, over ones that won't or
aren't, if not out right ignore next-hops that won't do BFD with me.