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

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

On 10/02/2015 13:30, Randy Bush wrote:
> you might find
> 
>    draft-ymbk-idr-rs-bfd-00.txt
> 
> interesting.  or not.

definitely interesting.  This seems to be similar to an idea that Dave
Freedman put forward a couple of years ago in an unpublished draft which
was tentatively named draft-scholl-idr-advisory-01-df-input.  It would be
appropriate to mention him in the acknowledgements.

Overloading NHIB announcements with these semantics is a mistake, in part
because because not all announcements to an IXP RS will have next-hop-self
set.  This means that the set of NHs received from a client could include
routers outside the administrative control of the announcing router and
that could potentially cause a good deal of trouble.  In a RS scenario,
each client router should only be able to authoritatively announce what it
can handle.

It would be more sensible to define a new bgp attribute to allow RS clients
to announce BFD candidacy to the RSN and to allow the RS to announce a list
of potential BFD candidates to each client, along with a set of rules to
determine how bfd sessions would be set up, what protocols should be
included, etc.

Nick