other comments for single-hop bfd [Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-01.txt]

[Pekka Savola <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

A couple of other comments for the single hop bfd spec:

- the text for supporting single-hop static routes and eBGP was 
discussed previously on the list.  This is not included in -01. Was 
this just forgotten (as the draft was submitted at the last minute), 
or was there a particular reason for excluding these ?

- the last sentence of the following text is not factually correct:

    Note that it is possible in some failure scenarios for the network to
    be in a state such that the IGP comes up, but the BFD session cannot
    be established, and, more particularly, data cannot be forwarded.
    To avoid this situation, it would be beneficial to not allow the IGP
    to establish a neighbor/adjacency.  However, this would preclude the
    operation of the IGP in an environment in which not all systems
    support BFD.

.. in fact it would preclude the operation of the IGP in the 
particular BFD-enabled _interface_.  The text seems to be implying 
that having BFD would be an IGP domain-wide toggle like IS-IS 
authentication.  But in reality, it is an interface toggle, so this 
argument is irrelevant.


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