Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces
draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-02-10
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-02-07
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from EDIT |
2014-01-13
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2014-01-09
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2014-01-09
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2014-01-06
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-01-03
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-01-03
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-01-03
|
04 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-01-02
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-01-02
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2014-01-02
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-01-02
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-12-28
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2013-12-28
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-12-18
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-12-18
|
04 | Marc Binderberger | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2013-12-18
|
04 | Marc Binderberger | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-04.txt |
2013-12-10
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Kiran Chittimaneni. |
2013-12-05
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2013-12-05
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Sam Hartman. |
2013-12-05
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-12-05
|
03 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Richard Barnes has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-12-05
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Sam Hartman's secdir review comment deserves to be preserved in more than one place: "If the universe valued good abstraction layers, entire civilizations … [Ballot comment] Sam Hartman's secdir review comment deserves to be preserved in more than one place: "If the universe valued good abstraction layers, entire civilizations would crumble in disgust every time you send one of these packets. However, it is a useful hack for performance and code re-use." He also agreed there were no new security considerations. |
2013-12-05
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-12-05
|
03 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2013-12-05
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Telechat review by OPSDIR with state 'Withdrawn' |
2013-12-04
|
03 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot discuss] This is an "Just want to make sure there's a cogent answer" DISCUSS: Is this really something we need to burn a port … [Ballot discuss] This is an "Just want to make sure there's a cogent answer" DISCUSS: Is this really something we need to burn a port for? It seems like you could distinguish this somewhere within the payload, e.g., by using a new version number (although I guess this would burn a version number). |
2013-12-04
|
03 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2013-12-04
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] We will need to address the Routing Directorate review from Thomas Morin reproduced here for the record. Summary: The document is concise, … [Ballot comment] We will need to address the Routing Directorate review from Thomas Morin reproduced here for the record. Summary: The document is concise, well written, and raises no major issue. However, bringing clarifications to a few areas should be considered prior to publication. Major Issues: None. Minor Issues: - Mi.1) The document mentions the use of a specific UDP port for the micro-BFD sessions (6784). It should probably explain what is the behavior if BFD messages from a micro-BFD sessions are received on the normal BFD port (3784), and vice-versa what is the behavior for BFD messages from a non-BFD sessions is received on the micro-BFD UDP port. - Mi.2) The document indicates in section 2.2 that "The details of how [the destination IP address of the BFD peer] is learned are outside the scope of this document.". First, an example of a common practice would be great to provide an illustration. Second, I would find it worth documenting how this can be done in practice on an unnumbered link - Mi.3) The notion of "L3 continuity" is used in the introduction, but it is not explained what this means; it would deserve being explained as the idea of "continuity" may not be obvious to interpret in a contect where a single L3 hop is being tested. - Mi.4) Section 4 mentions "LMM" and "some Interface management module" without providing any definition nor explaining the role of such modules. - Mi.5) The behavior described in the Appendix looks very important for smooth activation of the feature in a real network and is actually specification text. I'm thus surprised to find it in an Appendix -- where it could be missed by implementors. I would suggest considering moving this text among the rest of technical specifications sections. ** Editorial comments: - Ed.1) I would suggest removing the mention of the use of a specific UDP port from the Abstract, which would then be more concise -- the motivation for using a specific UDP port so could be provided in section 2.2. - Ed.2) Section 2.3: "For the following BFD packets with Up state the MAC address from the received BFD packets for the session MAY be used instead of the dedicated MAC. " => "the _source_ MAC address from the received BFD packets" ? (adding "source" would remove any risk of ambiguous interpretation) - Ed.3) Section 5: "MAY remove the member link from the load balance table only that matches the address family of the failing BFD session" I had issues parsing this sentence; what about: "MAY remove the member link from only the load balance table that matches..." Furthermore, it would be nice to add a colon at the end of the sentence to indicate that what follows is an illustration of what precedes. Last, I think it would be worth indicating explicitly that "The member link MAY also be removed from both the L4 and L6 load balancing table". - Ed.4) I believe you need to update contact information for Nitin Bahadur. |
2013-12-04
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel |
2013-12-04
|
03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2013-12-04
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] To the document shepherd: The shepherd writeup was clear and useful, without being unnecessarily wordy. Thanks for a good writeup. My former DISCUSS … [Ballot comment] To the document shepherd: The shepherd writeup was clear and useful, without being unnecessarily wordy. Thanks for a good writeup. My former DISCUSS point about the IANA registrations is handled by the RFC Editor note. Thanks, Adrian. |
2013-12-04
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-12-04
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-12-04
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot discuss] This is a really trivial point, but as the IANA review didn't pick it up we need to make sure it's called out … [Ballot discuss] This is a really trivial point, but as the IANA review didn't pick it up we need to make sure it's called out to them: IANA assigned a dedicated MAC address 01-00-5E-90-00-01 (see [RFC7042]) as well as UDP port 6784 for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces. The IANA review says that no IANA actions are required. In fact, the early registrations do need to have their references updated to point to this RFC (they currently point to this draft's predecessor, draft-mmm-bfd-on-lags). Adding two paragraphs to the above that say something like this should do it: ADD In the IANA Multicast 48-bit MAC Addresses registry http://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers#ethernet-numbers-3 IANA is asked to change the reference for the registration of 90-00-01 to [RFC-to-be]. In the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number registry http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers IANA is asked to change the reference for the registration of port 6784 to [RFC-to-be]. END |
2013-12-04
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] To the document shepherd: The shepherd writeup was clear and useful, without being unnecessarily wordy. Thanks for a good writeup. A very minor … [Ballot comment] To the document shepherd: The shepherd writeup was clear and useful, without being unnecessarily wordy. Thanks for a good writeup. A very minor comment to the editors: This document actually is an Applicability Statement, as described in RFC 2026. It doesn't make a lot of difference, but it might be reasonable to say that in the introduction, as something like this: In the Abstract: OLD This document defines a mechanism to run BFD on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) interfaces. NEW This Applicability Statement defines a mechanism to run BFD on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) interfaces. END In the Introduction: OLD The approach taken in this document is to run a Asynchronous mode BFD session over each LAG member link NEW The approach taken in this document is to run a Asynchronous mode BFD session over each LAG member link END I ask this because there's a lack of understanding of what Applicability Statements are, and calling it out might be useful. But this is truly minor, and if you'd rather not do that, it's fine. Thanks for considering it. |
2013-12-04
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-12-04
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2013-12-04
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-12-03
|
03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-12-03
|
03 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-12-02
|
03 | Tina Tsou | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Benson Schliesser |
2013-12-02
|
03 | Tina Tsou | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Benson Schliesser |
2013-12-02
|
03 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2013-12-02
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2013-12-02
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-12-02
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-12-02
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-12-02
|
03 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call (ends 2013-12-02) |
2013-11-30
|
03 | Marc Binderberger | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-03.txt |
2013-11-30
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] Thank you for producing this clearly written doc! |
2013-11-30
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-11-29
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
2013-11-29
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-11-29
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-11-29
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-12-05 |
2013-11-25
|
02 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2013-11-21
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2013-11-21
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2013-11-21
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Hartman |
2013-11-21
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Hartman |
2013-11-20
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Kiran Chittimaneni |
2013-11-20
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Kiran Chittimaneni |
2013-11-18
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-11-18
|
02 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection WG (bfd) to consider the following document: - 'Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-12-02. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document proposes a mechanism to run BFD on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) interfaces. It does so by running an independent Asynchronous mode BFD session on every LAG member link. This mechanism allows the verification of member link continuity, either in combination with, or in absence of, LACP. It provides a shorter detection time than what LACP offers. The continuity check can also cover elements of layer 3 bidirectional forwarding. This mechanism utilizes a well-known UDP port distinct from that of single-hop BFD over IP. This new UDP port removes the ambiguity of BFD over LAG packets from BFD over single-hop IP. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2084/ |
2013-11-18
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-11-18
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Last call was requested |
2013-11-18
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-11-18
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2013-11-18
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was changed |
2013-11-18
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-11-18
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-11-18
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-11-17
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2013-11-12
|
02 | Nobo Akiya | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-11-12
|
02 | Nobo Akiya | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2013-11-12
|
02 | Nobo Akiya | The BFD Working Group requests that Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) … The BFD Working Group requests that Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-02 Is published as an RFC on the standards track. As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Requested RFC type: Proposed Standard The document header says: Standards Track This document specifies new protocol elements and procedures, and clearly need to be on the standards track. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document proposes a mechanism to run BFD on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) interfaces. It does so by running an independent Asynchronous mode BFD session on every LAG member link. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Blurred L2/L3 line stemmed several interesting discussions. Is it layer violation for BFD operating at layer 3 to make layer 2 decision? How does it interact with LACP? How does it influence LAG member link usability? The desire and need for rapid detection of LAG member link usability, as well as similar solutions already implemented by multiple vendors, resulted in consensus to push this technology forward. WG was satisfied with very careful wordings of the document to ensure that solution does not tread into IEEE turf. In addition, remote IP address discovery was a controversial topic. There were multiple ideas to do this dynamically, which WG couldn't reach consensus. Thus this aspect was taken out into a separate draft. That spin-off draft died, since people lost interest due to statically configuring remote IP address working good enough. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There are multiple implementations of the protocol. Even was held to interoperate the implementations. The document has been reviewed through the normal WG process. No MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review been performed or requested. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Nobo Akiya is the document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document Shepherd reviewed the document at multiple stages of the document, including when it was accepted as a BFD WG document and as part of WGLC. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No such concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. IEEE liaison for this work has been completed. http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1192/ (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. As described in (2), dynamic remote IP address discovery topic is an open end with very little interests. However, it is a topic which comes up from time to time. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. One IPR exists. http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2084/ Each author has stated on the working group mailing list that they are un-aware of any IPR that relates to this document, beyond the one mentioned above. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. One IPR exists. http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2084/ (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The working group is behind this document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No such threats. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The document passes the ID nits tool clean, with two minor exceptions. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such reviews required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? There are normative and informative references in this document. All but one are existing RFC's. One is a reference to IEET document: [IEEE802.1AX]. All references are listed and all are referenced correctly. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? All normative references are to existing RFCs. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are no downward references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No existing RFCs will be changed by the publication of this document. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The Shepherd have reviewed the IANA Considerations. > IANA assigned a dedicated MAC address 01-00-5E-90-00-01 (see > [RFC7042]) as well as UDP port 6784 for UDP encapsulated micro BFD > sessions. For dedicated MAC address, confirmed the IANA page. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers/ethernet-numbers.xhtml For UDP port, confirmed the IANA page. http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml?search=6784 The IANA considerations are roughly written, but given that allocations have already been completed, it seems fine. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No such needed. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No such review. |
2013-11-12
|
02 | Nobo Akiya | State Change Notice email list changed to bfd-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags@tools.ietf.org |
2013-11-12
|
02 | Nobo Akiya | Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel |
2013-11-12
|
02 | Nobo Akiya | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-11-12
|
02 | Nobo Akiya | IESG state set to Publication Requested |
2013-11-12
|
02 | Nobo Akiya | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-11-12
|
02 | Nobo Akiya | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2013-11-12
|
02 | Nobo Akiya | Changed document writeup |
2013-11-12
|
02 | Nobo Akiya | Changed document writeup |
2013-11-12
|
02 | Jeffrey Haas | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2013-11-12
|
02 | Jeffrey Haas | This document now replaces draft-mmm-bfd-on-lags instead of None |
2013-11-11
|
02 | Marc Binderberger | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-02.txt |
2013-10-24
|
01 | Jeffrey Haas | Document shepherd changed to Nobo Akiya |
2013-10-24
|
01 | Jeffrey Haas | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2013-10-24
|
01 | Jeffrey Haas | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2013-06-13
|
01 | Marc Binderberger | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-01.txt |
2013-05-15
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-00 | |
2013-05-10
|
00 | Marc Binderberger | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-00.txt |