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

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

Robert Raszuk wrote:
> And one of the requirements as you have heard from at least one customer is
> to test MTU of the path to such BGP next hops. Is RFC5880 BFD really best 
> tool for that ?

All IXPs have published MTUs and someone attempts to connect to an IXP
with the expectation that using a different MTU is going to cause
anything other than complete brokenness, then I'd tactfully suggest an
alternative career path.

>     As noted previously, the draft does permit for alternate means
>     beyond BFD.
>     However, we have to pick one.  Standardizing ping is likely a bad
>     idea. :-)
> 
> ​What is there to standardize ? RFC862 seems like pretty good standard
> already. 

With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.

ICMP is the wrong tool in the same way that ARP request/reply is also
the wrong tool for this.  It's rubbish for this purpose because it's
usually highly deprioritised on routers, unlike bfd which is often
fast-pathed and carefully controlled.  BFD is fit for this purpose
because it's designed specifically and is supported by router vendors
for exactly this purpose.

Fast liveliness detection cannot be pawned off to an arbitrary protocol
just because that protocol replies to packets, in the same way that we
don't exchange routes over xml in https or implement ssh using udp/53,
or plough fields using a modified toyota yaris.

Nick