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
>