Re: [Idr] 2 Week WG Adoption call for draft-ymbk-idr-rs-bfd-00 (3/2/2015 to 3/16/2015)

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

as you know, i also have not trusted route servers.  arnold asked what
would allow me to extend a little trust.  draft-ymbk-idr-rs-bfd is an
attempt.


>> clue bat, please.  how does your scheme tell the rs to give me next
>> best paths instead of those over the failing link?
> It doesn't , but then, if the exchange is having issues, I won't be
> sending any further traffic over it until it is repaired, so I would
> stop trusting the RS at this point.

we see many cases of small inter-peer failures where other links are
just fine.  it can be an interface, a router-to-switch cable, ...  this
is why we want to tell the rs to back off only the failing link.

>> how likely are we to get the bfd hacks from C, J, A, B, ...?  in our
>> draft, we are trying to minimize dependence on vendor hacks for a
>> reason.  their frelling bfds are not even fully compatible today.
> 
> This one IMHO requires the least protocol changes (we just register a
> new diagnostic flag from an existing IANA FCFS registry), no changes
> needed to BGP or the RS implementation.

your draft requires changes to bfd.  ymbk is trying to avoid that.  a
hack to bird is something we can do ourselves, does not rely on the
vendors.

but this is a call for adoption.  imiho, the wg should adopt both drafts
so we can sort it in the wg.

randy