Subject: Re: [trill] WG LC on draft-ietf-p2mp-bfd-04.txt - 2/7/2016 to 2/21/2016 - Second WG LC (3/7 to 3/20)

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 18:15:36 -0400

Hi,

I support the trill-p2mp-bfd draft.

1)      Does the support of multi-point BFD aid deployments?

Yes, it should be good for monitoring multi-destination connectivity.

2)      Are the suggested additions to RFC7177 bootstrapping
sufficient for this technology?

I believe the changed part of RFC 7177 relates to one-hop sessions
only. There can certainly be one-hop sessions between a head and
multiple tails since, for example,  the link can be a broadcast link
consisting of a bridge LAN with multiple RBridges attached. I do not
think the bootstrap mechanism in RFC 7177 or this modified version is
sufficient for multi-hop sessions since it uses Hellos rather than
LSPs. Multi-hop sessions are presumably configured by the network
manager.

3)      Do you feel this technology is ready for standardization?

Yes.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Susan Hares <[email-masked]> wrote:
> We did not receive any comments on the WGLC for draft-ietf-p2mp-bfd-04.txt
> (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07692.html).
> Perhaps this was because I started the WG LC during Chinese new year.   We
> will try a second WG LC before declaring “no support for this draft”
>
>
>
> In your comments please consider,
>
> 1)      Does the support of multi-point BFD aid deployments?
>
> 2)      Are the suggested additions to RFC7177 bootstrapping sufficient for
> this technology?
>
> 3)      Do you feel this technology is ready for standardization?
>
>
>
> Sue Hares