Re: [Idr] IDR WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server (2/2/2015 - 2/16/2015)

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

>> we considered a more 'liberal' approach similar to one recommended
>> privately by job, where the peer discovers who to set up bfd with by
>> what next hops they get.  this has problems in that it assumes NH is
>> set, prefixes exist (A may announce nothing to B), etc.
> 
> Making this a function of BFD (and not BGP) makes sense here IMHO,
> if there is no NH set, or no prefixes exist on day one then
> I'm not going to need a BFD session in the first place.

while A may not announce anything to B, B may have gifts for A

>>> which provides some assurance that you know your potential bfd peer
>>> set.
> Is't this the point of the RS, to facilitate in the face of the
> unknown?  with the above approach, assuming I filter against the RS,
> if I wanted to, would I not still reach the same outcome?

i can not parse.

randy