MIB question - default BFD enable status?

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Wed, 10 August 2005 20:17 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E2x0s-0001s4-4l; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:17:22 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E2x0q-0001rY-AE for rtg-bfd@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:17:20 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01166 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:17:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from gateout02.mbox.net ([] helo=gwo2.mbox.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E2xYz-0004hM-Ln for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:52:39 -0400
Received: from gateout02.mbox.net (gateout02.mbox.net []) by gwo2.mbox.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4BF6F163D7D for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:16:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from gateout02.mbox.net [] by gateout02.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.17K) with ESMTP id 577JHJuq30185Mo2; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:16:53 GMT
Received: from gw1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [] by gateout02.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.21U); Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:16:53 GMT
X-USANET-Source: IN jhaas@nexthop.com gw1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET
X-USANET-MsgId: XID162JHJuq33078Xo2
Received: from localhost ([]) by gw1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:16:53 -0600
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:16:52 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20050810201652.GS5530@nexthop.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2005 20:16:53.0579 (UTC) FILETIME=[72E941B0:01C59DE8]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3
Subject: MIB question - default BFD enable status?
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

Since I'm now freed from the tyrannies of my company's latest release, I'm
in the process of reviewing the various BFD specificiations.  One
of the questions that came up in during the MIB review was something
that input from the WG would be helpful for:

        bfdAdminStatus OBJECT-TYPE 
           SYNTAX   INTEGER { enabled(1), disabled(2) }         
           MAX-ACCESS   read-write 
           STATUS   current 
              "The global administrative status of BFD in this router.  
               The value 'enabled' denotes that the BFD Process is 
               active on at least one interface; 'disabled' disables  
               it on all interfaces." 
           DEFVAL { enabled }  
           ::= { bfdScalarObjects 1 } 

Arguments can be made both ways for this feature to be enabled or disabled
by default.  I believe that, at least in the MIB, it should be disabled.

If you have an opinion, please bring it to the list.

Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies