Re: WG adoption call for draft-merciaz-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode-02.txt (9/2 to 9/17/2019)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:57:06 +0000

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.idr
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Hi Jeff, Robert, 
I couldn't agree more with Jeff. 
Thanks,
Acee

On 9/11/19, 10:49 AM, "Idr on behalf of Jeffrey Haas" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

    Robert,
    
    On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 08:46:22PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
    > If you really want to make it work for IBGP (other then corner p2p use
    > cases) you need to encap both BFD and BGP into UDP/IP header and treat as
    > one flow. I don't see any issue with that.
    
    Aside from some radical changes to BGP transport.  That's a non-starter, and
    not a problem we're intending to address.
    
    > And last bringing down the BGP session to RRs just because BFD in strict
    > mode on that session got a hiccup serves no good.
    
    As I noted in the last response, there's a number of caveats.  Your use case
    may be different than someone else's.  If you don't like it - don't do that.
    
    Again, BFD gets used both in single and multi-hop situations for BGP.  We're
    only addressing where in the state machine it's used, not the use cases.
    And very intentionally, not prohibiting existing use cases.
    
    > To detect remote next hop liveness you have different mechanisms in place.
    
    See draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd for some discussion on that.
    
    -- Jeff
    
    _______________________________________________
    Idr mailing list
    [email protected]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
    

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr