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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 01:12:48PM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > The fundamental question is should it be unidirectional (no session
> > established of any sort between any to any) or we would like to keep the
> > state associated with tracked object (BFD, symmetric or asymmetric
> > echo/seamless etc ...).
>
> Both would be vastly superiour to what we have now - "no lively detection".
>

​Ok .. let me take a stub on this with existing ​equipment after IETF. Will
report findings either offline or online. If for nothing else then to just
document what automation is already possible today in this space.

Having an IETF recommendation how to make indirect peerings more robust
> by doing x, y or z and tieing that into BGP NH feasibility decision
> would defuse the "nobody else is asking for it" argument thoroughly :)
>

​Well this to me sounds like a perfect GROW draft at most. ​

But let's face it ... for all major vendors IX based revenue does not even
fit to annual balance sheet .... so I am pretty sure any enhancement in
this space will be done only after good amount of convincing arguments even
if all IXPs sign an open letter "We need it".

Cheers,
R.