* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Bfd Status Pages

Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alvaro Retana, Martin Vigoureux, John Scudder | 2004-Jun-02 —  

IETF-110 bfd minutes

Session 2021-03-11 1530-1630: Room 5 - bfd chatroom


minutes-110-bfd-00 minutes

          # BFD IETF 110 - Thursday March 11th 2021 - 14:30-15:30 (UTC)
          Chairs: Jeffrey Haas, Reshad Rahman
          # Agenda
          ## Chairs update:
            10 mins - Jeff Haas & Reshad Rahman
          Acee: Take out BFD MPLS TE from BFD YANG and have another document for
          the MPLS TE part. This is holding up OSPF/ISIS/PIM YANG.
          Greg Mirsky: draft-ietf-mvpn-bess-failover is currently in RFC editor
          Jeff Haas: Holdup point is IDR, need more generic mechanism?
          Matthew Bocci: This was done in BESS because it is specific to VPNs.
          Greg Mirsky: There are 2 other related documents. MPLS WG bfd-directed
          in path engineering environments. Extends LSP-Ping for reverse
          direction. Would like BFD community to take a look and share opinion on
          MPLS and BFD mailing lists. Routing directorate review comments have been
          addressed, but reviewer believes otherwise. Also: mpls-encpasulations-p2mp
          in MPLS WG (individual draft for active tails).
          ## BFD unsolicted (draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited):
           5 minutes - Reshad Rahman
          Reshad Rahman: Need AD help to decide standards track v/s
          informational. Jeff: No BFD protocol changes but changing the BFD
          YANG tree.
          John Scudder: We will take it offline.
          [25 mins]
          ## BFD secure sequence numbers (draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers):
            10 minutes - Mahesh Jethanandani
          Mahesh Jethanandani: Shepherd suggested proposing algorithms for
          interop. What happens when these algos become obsoleted/deprecated?
          Reshad Rahman: do as usual, let implementors decide?
          John Scudder: Isn't algorithm local matter?
          Mahesh Jethanandani: Both ends have to use the same algorithm
          Jeff Haas: Wasn't there an algorithm suggested by security expert
          (Alan DeKok)?
          Mahesh Jethanandani: I will look into it
          Jeff Haas: We don't want to use expensive cyphers otherwise we are not
          optimizing authentication
          Acee Lindem: what about wraps?
          Mahesh Jethanandani: taking monotonically seq number, generate cypher
          from that
          Acee Lindem: ok
          [33 mins]
          ## BFD stablity (draft-ietf-bfd-stability):
            5 minutes - Mahesh Jethanandani
          Mahesh Jethanandani: Albert Fu suggested use of counters to track
          loss. BFD YANG model was augmented to add the counter. IANA considerations
          section updated and YD review requested by Reshad.
          Reshad Rahman: Are the counters under a feature?
          Mahesh Jethanandani: No, it's the only thing in the module.
          Jeff Haas: How do you know it's supported? Won't it be published as part
          of NETCONF Hello/YANG library.
          Reshad/Mahesh: If you do not plan to support it, you would not advertise
          it in the Hello and it would not be in YANG library.
          [37 mins]
          ## BFD unaffiliated echo (draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo):
            10 minutes  - Weiqiang Cheng
          Weiqiang Cheng: Gave description of updates to RFC5880 and the detailed
          Greg Mirsky: For the 5880 updates, I have a concern about security
          consideration. 5880 allows a device to regulate how frequently it can
          receive BFD echo (or even deny them). Concern that a device might send
          too many BFD echo packets.
          Weiqiang Cheng: We should add a note about this.
          Greg Mirsky: Fields have to be initialized by sender e.g. set status to
          Up. That is not described in the slides.
          Weiqiang Cheng: It is not mentioned in the slides but it is mentioned
          in the document.
          Acee Lindem: Please don't use "Yang": s/Yang/YANG
          Mach Chen: Responding to Greg's comments. It is transparent to the remote
          system. The remote system treats this as a regular packet
          Jeff Haas: In 5880, we have signaling for echo support to express
          willingness to do so. In the BBF use-case, there's no BFD state at the
          other end, so we can't use the same procedure.
          Weiqiang Cheng: There is a risk that other end will do something
          unexpected on BFD echo.
          Jeff Haas: This is called reflection attack and should be mentioned in
          security considerations
          Greg Mirsky: BBF believes their document (TR-146) lacks details, and
          would be happy if BFD WG "cleans this up"
          Jeff Haas: In this document, we are allowed to be in Down state without
          transmitting packets, that's an update to 5880
          Greg Mirsky: BFD echo format undefined in 5880. Does that mean all BFD
          echo must use this format?
          Reshad Rahman: Clarify that this is just for BFD unaffiliated.
          Jeff Haas: Not sure whether we have to specify contents of BFD echo. If
          you do, can you make it an option?
          Weiqiang Cheng: We will come up with a proposal
          ## Actions for after IETF:
          - Decide what to do with BFD YANG (split?)
          - Status for unsolicited BFD (informational vs standards track)
          - Push 3 authentications docs to IESG (close to being done in WG)
          - New rev for BFD large packets
          - New rev for BFD unsolicited
          - New rev for BFD unaffiliated

Generated from PyHt script /wg/bfd/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -