Subject: Adoption request for draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:30:58 -0400

We had presentations on draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-(mpls|ip) during IETF 96.
This work covers multi-chassis forms of BFD-on-LAG, similar to RFC 7130.

After that presentation, the sense of the room was that this work was
something the WG would like to adopt.

This e-mail begins a formal adoption poll for one or both of these drafts.
This poll ends on April 16.  The timing of this poll is to give WG members a
chance to read the draft for comment during the WG session in Chicago on
Monday and also to set the date for two weeks after IETF 98 ends.

Please respond to this mail to indicate your support or lack of support for
this adoption.  Unless otherwise noted, support will be interpreted as
support for *both* documents.

The chairs wish to remind the Working Group that these documents have IPR
asserted against the mechanisms contained in these drafts.

-- Jeff and Reshad

---

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:46:22 +0100

Support as co-author

Regards,
Jeff

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 16:30, Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:23:20 -0500

Hi Jeff, Reshad, John, et. al,
at our discussion in Berlin
<https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-bfd> John pointed
to recent extension of IEEE 802.1AX, Distributed Resilient Network
Interface (DRNI). I've reviewed, to the best of my understanding, Section 9
in IEEE 802.1AX-2014 (I can send copy if anyone is interested) and I agree
with John that MC-LAG can be viewed as special case of DRNI. But I'm not
sure that trying to address monitoring of DRNI with BFD would be
appropriate. I think that using CFM/G.8013, a.k.a. Y.1731 mechanisms to
monitor Layer 2 entity, which DRNI is, seems more appropriate. If there are
cases of DRNI, other then MC-LAG, that are of interest to IETF community,
I'd certainly would like to discuss these and see how we can apply BFD to
monitor them as unified entity as well as its individual interfaces,
similar to RFC 7130.

Regards,
Greg

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:23:55 -0500

Hi Jeff, Reshad, et. al.,

yes, support as co-author.

Regards,
Greg

---

From: John Messenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 19:45:40 +0000

Adding some DRNI experts…

From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 23 March 2017 15:23
To: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>; John Messenger <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Adoption request for draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag

Hi Jeff, Reshad, John, et. al,
at our discussion in     Berlin<https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-bfd> John pointed to recent extension of IEEE 802.1AX, Distributed Resilient Network Interface (DRNI). I've reviewed, to the best of my understanding, Section 9 in IEEE 802.1AX-2014 (I can send copy if anyone is interested) and I agree with John that MC-LAG can be viewed as special case of DRNI. But I'm not sure that trying to address monitoring of DRNI with BFD would be appropriate. I think that using CFM/G.8013, a.k.a. Y.1731 mechanisms to monitor Layer 2 entity, which DRNI is, seems more appropriate. If there are cases of DRNI, other then MC-LAG, that are of interest to IETF community, I'd certainly would like to discuss these and see how we can apply BFD to monitor them as unified entity as well as its individual interfaces, similar to RFC 7130.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
We had presentations on draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-(mpls|ip) during IETF 96.
This work covers multi-chassis forms of BFD-on-LAG, similar to RFC 7130.

-- Jeff and Reshad