Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd-06
review-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd-06-opsdir-early-clarke-2024-02-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd-06
Requested revision 06 (document currently at 08)
Type Early Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2024-03-13
Requested 2024-02-26
Requested by Yingzhen Qu
Authors Greg Mirsky , Jeff Tantsura , Gyan Mishra
I-D last updated 2024-02-29
Completed reviews Opsdir Early review of -06 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -08 by Emmanuel Baccelli
Secdir Early review of -08 by Alexey Melnikov
Comments
We'd like to request early reviews of this document before initiating a WGLC.
Please note that this draft has a dependency on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis/, which is now in RFC editor queue.

Thanks,
Yingzhen
Assignment Reviewer Joe Clarke
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/9qwf8IEar8cjf3OLmGe3LCVoEjk
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 08)
Result Has issues
Completed 2024-02-29
review-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd-06-opsdir-early-clarke-2024-02-29-00
I have been asked to review this document on behalf of the OPS directorate. 
This document describes the applicability of p2mp BFD to VRRPv3.  It also
defines an extension to VRRPv3 to support bootstrapping a p2mp BFD session. 
For the most part, I found the document clear, but there were a couple of
issues I had describing the BFD traffic flow and operational process.

First, in section 3, there is a statement: "The Active router, configured to
use p2mp BFD to support faster convergence of VRRP, starts transmitting BFD
control packets with VRID  as a source IP address..."  I think you mean a
virtual IPvX address (or Active router IP) as the source as the VRID is just an
8-bit value.  Below you do seem to indicate that the source should be a virtual
IP when a Backup changes to Active.

Also in Section 3, there is text that reads:

Backup router detects the failure of the Active router, it re-
evaluates its role in the VRID .  As a result, the Backup router may
become the Active router of the given VRID or continue as a Backup
router.

I feel the use of VRID here is also wrong (or at least confusing).  My
understanding of VRID is just that 8-bit value for the ID of the Virtual
Router.  To me it would be clearer if both instances of VRID in the text above
were replaced with Virtual Router.

As a nit, in Section 1, you have text:

Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880] had been
originally defined detect

I think that should read "originally defined to detect".