Subject: [bmwg] RE:Request for Opinions on Benchmarking the BFD protocol.

From: "Samir Vapiwala \(svapiwal\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:34:31 -0400

HI

I think benchmarking BFD protocol is important and I do support it.  but
BFD does not scale by itself, It always run along with some clients e.g,
OSPF, ISIS or TE FRR etc.. which are also defined in your draft..  In
order to scale BFD we have to scale clients also, as we have covered
"draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-01.txt"  for TE FRR BFD testcase.. 

So question I have for authors, Is it going to be one methodology draft
for all the BFD clients or work in divided into multiple clients based
methodology draft ?

Thanks

Samir

 

From: 

Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 2:27 PM

To: [email-masked]

Subject: [bmwg] Request for Opinions on Benchmarking the BFD protocol.

Hi folks,

Jay and I would like to hear your opinion on the idea of benchmarking
the BFD protocol in the BMWG. 

The BFD protocol is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to a
variety of existing methods to detect forwarding failures on links
between network elements. It is being proposed as the forwarding failure
detection mechanism for a host of routing protocols, virtual links and
p2mp topologies. It is a very useful in the situations where underlying
physical media doesn't lend itself well to fast detection of failures.

You can find extensive information on the BFD protocol itself at the BFD
WG weblink http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bfd/ <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bfd/>

Please see

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-salahuddin-bmwg-bfd-motivation
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-salahuddin-bmwg-bfd-motivatio
n> 

-00.txt for the deails on the topic and our position and please let us
know what do you think.

thx, esa

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: "Esa Salahuddin \(esalahud\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:29:24 -0400

Hi Samir,
 
I am glad that you support the idea of benchmarking the BFD protocol!
 
You are right that to benchmark the BFD protocol there has to be a
client that is capable of registering, issuing requests for new
sessions, receiving notificatins and acting accordingly; and also doing
it at a scale that allows the underneath benchmarking to be done.
However, i believe that the characterization of the BFD protocol
accomplished using any one client that is upto the task should be
representative of the BFD performance when used with any other client.
The BFD protocol is designed to operate independent of its clients.
Hence, there is no fundamental need to repeat the charaterization with
multiple clients.
 
So, i guess one methodology draft is all that we need. However, if you
or others think that we may need more focus on the clients, i am open to
that idea.
 
thx, esa

________________________________

	From: Samir Vapiwala (svapiwal) 
	Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:35 AM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [bmwg] RE:Request for Opinions on Benchmarking the BFD
protocol.

	HI

	I think benchmarking BFD protocol is important and I do support
it.  but BFD does not scale by itself, It always run along with some
clients e.g, OSPF, ISIS or TE FRR etc.. which are also defined in your
draft..  In order to scale BFD we have to scale clients also, as we have
covered "draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-01.txt"  for TE FRR BFD
testcase.. 

	So question I have for authors, Is it going to be one
methodology draft for all the BFD clients or work in divided into
multiple clients based methodology draft ?

	Thanks

	Samir

	 

	From: 

	To: [email-masked]

	Subject: [bmwg] Request for Opinions on Benchmarking the BFD
protocol.

	Hi folks,

	Jay and I would like to hear your opinion on the idea of
benchmarking the BFD protocol in the BMWG. 

	The BFD protocol is becoming an increasingly popular alternative
to a variety of existing methods to detect forwarding failures on links
between network elements. It is being proposed as the forwarding failure
detection mechanism for a host of routing protocols, virtual links and
p2mp topologies. It is a very useful in the situations where underlying
physical media doesn't lend itself well to fast detection of failures.

	You can find extensive information on the BFD protocol itself at
the BFD WG weblink http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bfd/
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bfd/> 

	Please see

	-00.txt for the deails on the topic and our position and please
let us know what do you think.

	thx, esa

---

From: "Aamer Akhter \(aakhter\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:21:37 -0400

Hi Esa,

Mostly agree, but I’m thinking that for some cases it would be useful to get metrics for multiple clients running together. For example, PIM and BGP with BFD running together. Given the new multipoint bfd draft this might be quite interesting ;-).

--
Aamer Akhter / [email-masked]
Ent & Commercial Systems, cisco Systems

From: Esa Salahuddin (esalahud) 
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:29 PM
To: Samir Vapiwala (svapiwal); [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [bmwg] RE:Request for Opinions on Benchmarking the BFD protocol.

Hi Samir,

You are right that to benchmark the BFD protocol there has to be a client that is capable of registering, issuing requests for new sessions, receiving notificatins and acting accordingly; and also doing it at a scale that allows the underneath benchmarking to be done. However, i believe that the characterization of the BFD protocol accomplished using any one client that is upto the task should be representative of the BFD performance when used with any other client. The BFD protocol is designed to operate independent of its clients. Hence, there is no fundamental need to repeat the charaterization with multiple clients.

So, i guess one methodology draft is all that we need. However, if you or others think that we may need more focus on the clients, i am open to that idea.

thx, esa

	 

	From: Samir Vapiwala (svapiwal) 
	Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:35 AM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [bmwg] RE:Request for Opinions on Benchmarking the BFD protocol.

	HI

	I think benchmarking BFD protocol is important and I do support it.  but BFD does not scale by itself, It always run along with some clients e.g, OSPF, ISIS or TE FRR etc.. which are also defined in your draft..  In order to scale BFD we have to scale clients also, as we have covered "draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-01.txt"  for TE FRR BFD testcase.. 

	So question I have for authors, Is it going to be one methodology draft for all the BFD clients or work in divided into multiple clients based methodology draft ?

	Thanks

	Samir

	 

	From: 

	To: [email-masked]

	Hi folks,

	Jay and I would like to hear your opinion on the idea of benchmarking the BFD protocol in the BMWG. 

	The BFD protocol is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to a variety of existing methods to detect forwarding failures on links between network elements. It is being proposed as the forwarding failure detection mechanism for a host of routing protocols, virtual links and p2mp topologies. It is a very useful in the situations where underlying physical media doesn't lend itself well to fast detection of failures.

	You can find extensive information on the BFD protocol itself at the BFD WG weblink http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bfd/ <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bfd/> 

	Please see

	http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-salahuddin-bmwg-bfd-motivation <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-salahuddin-bmwg-bfd-motivation> 

	-00.txt for the deails on the topic and our position and please let us know what do you think.

	thx, esa