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

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

Robert Raszuk wrote:
> But my point is that we can come up with single solution to both
> problems which would work in a hardware accelerated way equally well.

Then I suggest you author documents to:

- add a new icmp type to define reachability / mtu detection / etc mechanism
- replicate whatever bits of BFD you want to port over
- get widespread vendor support

Once you've done all this, and not before, then please feel free to
write an update to draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd rfc to include your new
reachability mechanism.

Or you could update bfd to support mtu detection.

> I
> am also observing that MTU issue is applicable to long distance
> stretched IXes which as I am sure you are aware is a real IX service
> offering by number of IX operators today. 

IXP core MTU monitoring is orthogonal to draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd.  IXP
edge MTU monitoring is the responsibility of the ixp edge participant.

If you are operating a private infrastructure in your company which
amalgamates these roles and where you have a need to monitor for MTU
changes, then this is a private problem which can be easily solved using
any one of a plethora of off-the-shelf tools and there is no reason
whatsoever for the ietf to standardise a new protocol to solve this
corner case.

I'm not going further down this rat-hole because it has nothing to with
this draft.

Nick