BFD w/ static routes and single-hop eBGP

Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Tue, 25 October 2005 10:28 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EUM2r-0000RJ-Ub; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 06:28:41 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EUM2p-0000Mc-Mg for rtg-bfd@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 06:28:39 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA05345 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 06:28:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EUMFl-0005Y6-Hv for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 06:42:02 -0400
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j9PASTP21398 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:28:29 +0300
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:28:28 +0300 (EEST)
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0510251322180.20898@netcore.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3
Subject: BFD w/ static routes and single-hop eBGP
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org

Hi,

I still want to see the details of BFD with:
  - single-hop static routes
  - single-hop eBGP

.. in some document.  At the last meeting, David said that he didn't 
believe these are necessary as the bfd-generic-01 doc includes this 
information but I disagree.  Even if the details are trivial (they may 
or may not be), as an operator I think it's vital to see them spelled 
out anywhere so that we can point vendors to a specific section of a 
spec in CFTs and ensure the protocols will be interoperable.

I suggest a section or two either in the main body of the spec or in 
an appendix either in draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop or 
draft-ietf-bfd-generic.

All of this would likely fit in one or two pages -- and if not, that 
would be even stronger reason that those details must be written out. 
At least one deployed implementation of static routes + BFD already 
exists.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings