RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91

[Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Santosh,
do you envision scenario when BFD multi-hop and single-hop sessions that share the same sender behave differently? In my opinion, if multi-hop session is unstable and single-hop is stable, then the problem is likely in the network and thus is real, rather than in the BFD sender and more implementation specific. Thus running BFD Echo even without cooperation of the next hop node (no timestamps there) would give sender information about latencies BFD is subjected to in this node.

                Regards,
                                Greg

From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Santosh P K
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 2:07 PM
To: Manav Bhatia; Marc Binderberger
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91

Hello Mac and Manav,
     Are we just talking about singlehop? How about MPLS BFD and multihop where echo does not work?

Thanks
Santosh P K

From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Manav Bhatia
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 9:33 AM
To: Marc Binderberger
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91

Hi Marc,



* Greg's echo idea is of course do-able - when you think timestamping in
hardware can be done then it can be done in the forwarding path for echos as
well. Depends on your hardware :-) and on an agreed (minimal) format for
echo. As mentioned BFD echo is not defined/used for multiple BFD features,
which limits it's use though.

For the echo mechanism to work, do you agree that you would have to continuously send Echos so that you can detect the issue?

Or are you suggesting that once BFD flaps we will start sending Echoes overloaded with debug information to detect the issue?

I'd like to understand this before the mailing list sees a barrage of emails. Alternatively, we can also take it offline and only report the summary of our discussion to the list.

Cheers, Manav