Re: BFD w/ static routes and single-hop eBGP

[Dave Katz <[e-mail]>]

Seems like we've beaten this one to death already.

For static routes, by their nature, there can be no interoperability  
problem as there is nothing to interoperate.

I don't see what else there is to specify for eBGP.  (This makes it  
considerably shorter than two pages.)

--Dave

On Oct 25, 2005, at 4:28 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:

> 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
>
>