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

Hi Mercia,

Many thx for an ack and reply.

Yes making the reference to RFC5882 section 10.2 is helpful. I see some
today may still run BFD on IBGP sessions for no reason. In fact it is
actually a sign of bad BGP design if such IBGP sessions are towards route
reflectors.

> There could still be cases where users only want to run iBGP BFD since no
IGP is enabled

> (e.g. fully mesh case).

Well let's not equate full mesh of IBGP with deployment of BGP as IGP.
Those are completely different deployment models.

While someone could run iBGP in a p2p mode as DC reachability protocol that
is rather an exception then a rule.

Concluding - I think it would be pretty safe to state that draft applies
only to point-to-point BGP sessions.

Kind regards,

Robert.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 11:32 PM Mercia Zheng (merciaz) <merciaz@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the review comments.
>
> The similar question has been asked early on whether  or not this draft
> should be only for eBGP.
>
> BGP BFD is enabled mostly for eBGP. RFC5882 section 10.2 specifies  “it
> is generally
>
> *unwise* for IBGP sessions to interact with BFD if the underlying IGP
>
> is already doing so.”.
>
>
>
> There could still be cases where users only want to run iBGP BFD since no
> IGP is enabled
>
> (e.g. fully mesh case).
>
>
>
> Anyway, we’ll take care of this comment in the next revision.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mercia
>
>
>
> *From: *Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <
> robert@raszuk.net>
> *Date: *Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 2:37 PM
> *To: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
> *Cc: *"idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for
> draft-merciaz-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode-02.txt (9/2 to 9/17/2019)
>
>
>
> Hi Acee,
>
>
>
> I have read the draft. Have one key question in fact triggered by
> colleagues comment below :)
>
>
>
> In the draft you are not making any distinction between iBGP and eBGP
> sessions. Is this intentional ?
>
>
>
> Procedures to establish and maintain eBGP vs iBGP sessions are
> vastly different hence an obvious question if you intentionally made no
> distinction or perhaps you had in mind all along that the draft applies
> only to eBGP ?
>
>
>
> I think for eBGP it is useful, for iBGP I already see real cases where it
> may not give you what you expect.
>
>
>
> In any case I support the adoption.
>
>
>
> Thx,
>
> Robert.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 9:57 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Speaking as a co-author, I support WG adoption.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Susan Hares <
> shares@ndzh.com>
> *Date: *Monday, September 2, 2019 at 2:02 PM
> *To: *IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[Idr] WG adoption call for
> draft-merciaz-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode-02.txt (9/2 to 9/17/2019)
>
>
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for
> draft-merciaz-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode-02.txt which you can access at:
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-merciaz-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode/
>
>
>
> For those who have indicated support for this draft during the lengthy IPR
> call, you are welcome to comment again
>
> or to trust that the IDR chairs read your comments during the lengthy IPR
> call.
>
>
>
> Please indicate if you think this draft is a good start for using the BFD
> technology
>
> as a check that prevents BGP connectivity until BFD session is established
>
> (indicating link connectivity).
>
>
>
> Cheerily, Susan Hares
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>