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

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

we considered a more 'liberal' approach similar to one recommended
privately by job, where the peer discovers who to set up bfd with by
what next hops they get.  this has problems in that it assumes NH is
set, prefixes exist (A may announce nothing to B), etc.

we also considered full rigid signaling approaches such as you and
nick suggest.  this path is much firmer theoretical ground.  the problem
is that it will wait years or forever for vendors to implement.

so this draft represents a middle ground (yes, a sofa-bed is neither a
good sofa nor a good bed:-) which we hope can be easily hacked so we can
actually deploy and use it, but which provides some assurance that you
know your potential bfd peer set.

ymmv, of course.

randy