Re: [OSPF] IETF OSPF YANG and BFD Configuration

Mahesh Jethanandani <> Thu, 18 May 2017 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CC52129B79; Thu, 18 May 2017 14:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yFm7CE4xAp-P; Thu, 18 May 2017 14:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAA90129B2D; Thu, 18 May 2017 14:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l18so71093940oig.2; Thu, 18 May 2017 14:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=M8JPZV+okP8CPchk4k3ob49bosSzhV+EU6O0q9WbTXc=; b=reqEctYPa/tPgSrlG+CJUQQNBzeZT17s5vWidj53+3fPYabwDSvA3NzzzmFtVIvt36 YebwATUckPLZlLgMDzIGG+a+6Ze1tDipdehqgFDwX2GTIsBlxitdZ7XgT36z0OfBJexP 8IRAvGXY/J3q9C1FFzoLxjKhaH96knol0/iAUK76ofu47PFkqHO3K9DxMdnFRsOHG7// gOOoLW0DdG22jm6Zbj3olQqL6zoEAEaBCC6fgyqoDkeFqvelIXgwXWZqlyPZdAsZ1eTu Oujpz6XCR/CDDw2m9oqHs9+fTnpoi1pTiWZUnO5adfv6UAveglweMsVRIT7HkvE/M2Sa 1sdQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=M8JPZV+okP8CPchk4k3ob49bosSzhV+EU6O0q9WbTXc=; b=izzKSDAC28viB8lKe9LRt1QV+If19PWLXbaele/DffsqZl3SvbxdeYLkbWr0cZd0YA UyF5ylLJGKViVkLMxizDgoI86BBw8m5HdkwzrcC3hs195m4Nm8Fak/Qd/nbnmxecpz5T JJhmFlBJiET54FUySp2ZBF5MPwShcBvUs0hrfvwCd+bXsMCYFPW2Pu/qxD+zyE7KmH+y yzffj6IEtPh5NqgiUYBBT0rp/PwGkQfTNgkVriLgN0DbdCqRDXTns0lZDyW7EpTWqaFx hCdaVpKUzYxWAi2NAO2rXweleLHPRCiMN1/vy20zPJUmVHe69+vLDV9cCzloRZPOf3Lb bmTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcD8LDA+tO6MLrDQ3DWTvf8eFhlrA6WfsZC0kUWB2JBj3LCkBrAJ KsVRnQPKIlidSA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id d20mr3892856oih.65.1495143257283; Thu, 18 May 2017 14:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:30d:1320:9cd1:5396:73dc:f0b0? ([2001:420:30d:1320:9cd1:5396:73dc:f0b0]) by with ESMTPSA id c50sm3215257ote.29.2017. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 18 May 2017 14:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EE85511B-9142-417A-A5E0-D0ECCE09868B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 14:34:20 -0700
Cc: Jeffrey Haas <>, OSPF WG List <>, "" <>, "" <>, "rtg-bfd@ietf. org" <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] IETF OSPF YANG and BFD Configuration
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 21:40:27 -0000

Resending with correct BFD WG address.

> On May 18, 2017, at 2:33 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <> wrote:
> Agree with Acee’s assessment. After much debate, we decided that we should leave BFD parameter configuration in the BFD model itself, and have any IGP protocol reference the BFD instance in BFD itself. This makes sense specially if multiple protocols fate-share the BFD session.
> Cheers.
>> On May 18, 2017, at 12:27 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) < <>> wrote:
>> Hi Jeff, 
>> At the OSPF WG Meeting in Chicago, you suggested that we may want to provide configuration of BFD parameters within the OSPF model (ietf-ospf.yang). We originally did have this configuration. However, after much discussion and coordination with the BFD YANG design team, we agreed to leave the BFD session parameters in BFD and only enable BFD within the OSPF and IS-IS models. 
>> We did discuss the fact that vendors (notably Cisco IOS-XR and Juniper JUNOS) do allow configuration within the IGPs. However, the consensus was to leave the BFD configuration in the BFD model. The heuristics to determine what parameters to use when the same BFD endpoint was configured with different parameters in different protocols were proprietary and somewhat of a hack. 
>> I may have not remembered all the details so I’d encourage others to chime in. 
>> Thanks,
>> Acee 
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> <>

Mahesh Jethanandani