Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-02.txt

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff,

Since you brought it up to the main mailing list, who are the other folks
> besides yourself that thinks S-BFD is a better fit?
>

​I will let them speak themselves if they care ...​



> You're going to make me write that largeish e-mail that doesn't help the
> discussion much about why S-BFD is not a good fit, aren't you?
>

​I am not going to make you do anything however since we are discussing
how best to detect NH liveness in NBMA env. we should examine all options
vs requirements for those.  ​

And one of the requirements as you have heard from at least one customer is
to test MTU of the path to such BGP next hops. Is RFC5880 BFD really best
tool for that ?



> > Yet UDP echo in some implementations
> > already does it today.
>
> As noted previously, the draft does permit for alternate means beyond BFD.
> However, we have to pick one.  Standardizing ping is likely a bad idea. :-)
>

​What is there to standardize ? RFC862 seems like pretty good standard
already.

Ref: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc862

And implementing it in hardware should not be that hard too for those
concerned
not to go to RE/RP with each packet. .

Thx,
R.
​






>
>
> -- Jeff
>