Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 02:36:10PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> My point here is that at no point does this document mandate the RS
> implement path selection mechanisms in response to the reported state
> from the clients.  However, this shouldn't preclude implementations
> that desire to make use of such state.
> 
> Thus, I don't understand the proscriptive desires.

Interesting, my perception of the document was different. From section 4
it is not clear to me that this behaviour is optional:

    "The RS uses the received ReachTell routes as input to the NHIB and
    hence the route selection process it performs on behalf of the
    client."

and in section 4.4:

    "In computing its per-client Loc-RIB, the RS uses the content of the
    related per-client NHIB as input to the route resolvability
    condition (section 9.1.2.1 of [RFC4271]).  The next hop being
    resolved is looked up in the NHIB and its state determined:"

and specifically:

    "Down next hops MUST NOT be considered resolvable."

Kind regards,

Job