Re: [Idr] draft-merciaz-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode

"Susan Hares" <> Thu, 25 July 2019 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 250A712027A for <>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.949
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8iLKx64hOmK3 for <>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 013BA120294 for <>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: "Susan Hares" <>
To: "'Albert Fu'" <>, <>
References: <5D3A0EB4029103460087056A_0_2148724@msclnypmsgsv03>
In-Reply-To: <5D3A0EB4029103460087056A_0_2148724@msclnypmsgsv03>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 16:21:11 -0400
Message-ID: <01c901d54326$80a67af0$81f370d0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01CA_01D54304.F9974BF0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQF9xyWyORt740Jak8iuJC4zx0K1faeKvkjA
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190725-4, 07/25/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-merciaz-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 20:21:23 -0000



To clarify, do you support WG adoption with the draft as is.  


As a WG chair, I have to trust that all  drafts are improved during the WG process.  Can this small change be made after adoption or should it be made before the draft is considered for adoption. 


Sue Hares


From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Albert Fu (BLOOMBERG/ 120 PARK)
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 4:19 PM
Subject: [Idr] draft-merciaz-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode


I am in support of this draft, and would like to request a small change to make this draft more operationally useful.

We have encountered several traffic blackhole problems in our production network without this feature. As such, we have deployed BGP with strict BFD mode on a proprietary vendor implementation for a while.
Since a lot of MetroE circuit failures occur with interfaces still up, ie. break in the middle issues, the traditional knobs like interface hold-time/debounce timer can not be used to dampen interface flaps. 

We have observed that interface issues tend to occur in bursts and would like to request that an option be added in "Section 4 Operation:" to delay BGP from coming up until BFD is proven stable continuously for a period of time (i.e. BFD hold up feature). 

This is a feature that we are currently using in the proprietary vendor deployment. In our case, since we have multiple redundant paths, we have some links where we delay BGP from coming up until BFD has been stable continuously for 60 seconds.

Albert Fu