Re: Implementation/Conformance Poll for rfc5880 (draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5880bis) - Cisco Details
Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Fri, 03 July 2026 19:04 UTC
Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A205A10DF8F44 for <rtg-bfd@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jul 2026 12:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1783105447; bh=5E6R7eQdPS1PihTe5/WkbVi2CR46iQ9TYibGk1wtd94=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=YFL71XgPMX1pyvfoWD6aXncLQ/q8h3FXiVOCAUg1HZwQSwZkbwCh+Tu/yN56IU/O3 uCve7MmGNobGICDyU5vvqhnrGS0QFwPFZlg+seXtu6Es44kRQsuh2qcLJhQJNKYqQZ rfd/V9VOm+P7yZXrYQMwyV+4BSxzy3fT0FUkqXWQ=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pfrc.org
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VRNl_4LNOJNG for <rtg-bfd@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jul 2026 12:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prospero.pfrc.org (prospero.pfrc.org [72.60.64.110]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88A2610DF8D60 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jul 2026 12:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=pfrc.org; s=prospero20250622; t=1783105338; bh=5E6R7eQdPS1PihTe5/WkbVi2CR46iQ9TYibGk1wtd94=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=e3mizV6EPST3kX0hAwEsdRIAzWZSn57HVqx4rBZLfLoB6tNZniKrY22wGDq0zVI1n nv96fdeVT/VK0ABZYG5i4tfQG4CwZCZk56WQhh8IXETfOHC4wg0r3wwzfCcUMd+Hgi 2FMKGkwiuo8pXlG151hLPVOtyL0H7f6qE9XGzMMaX2IbwJlmMzB9WLxPe5HW+HWYjF hvZbTPAcUoxFTgHQMJoBi3zcAbz2vrepFeAz4ylhsYJZ5mtlo25o0bVI8dVEPmwA7M 8KCuP6dp/YH9lNU1sg+z2p5R/P5aYb3yF8k96MMbE9DeApbRTRLCq/9MNV1AryIHID Z3cCA9s5MCE7w==
Received: from [IPV6:2600:1702:80c0:8960:9c5a:96d4:d670:1cba] (unknown [IPv6:2600:1702:80c0:8960:9c5a:96d4:d670:1cba]) by prospero.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E72398011C; Fri, 3 Jul 2026 19:02:17 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0WfdmIiQapz0m0c1HKyp9n5a"
Message-ID: <5bb702c8-d004-4a69-b159-4ed3adbe70e9@pfrc.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2026 15:02:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Implementation/Conformance Poll for rfc5880 (draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5880bis) - Cisco Details
To: "Rajaguru Veluchamy (rvelucha)" <rvelucha=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
References: <CAMMESsy5sndtHCL7vHfu1_FZkxrx=GfPX4aUGs_1WiXF8kGJRQ@mail.gmail.com> <DS0PR11MB6495E621448859D6AE826A79CDED2@DS0PR11MB6495.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DM4PR11MB52943291E0093478C774E0E7D2EB2@DM4PR11MB5294.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DM4PR11MB529448D7A8589DF09E8EBE03D2EB2@DM4PR11MB5294.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <DM4PR11MB529448D7A8589DF09E8EBE03D2EB2@DM4PR11MB5294.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID-Hash: PMJCUIS3YTDMHLXJYGLXI6EUZJ7QX5PH
X-Message-ID-Hash: PMJCUIS3YTDMHLXJYGLXI6EUZJ7QX5PH
X-MailFrom: jhaas@pfrc.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-rtg-bfd.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/Lx-SZeXCPHt4lBLvRKSeK5Yzk2o>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:rtg-bfd-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:rtg-bfd-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rtg-bfd-leave@ietf.org>
Rajaguru, A minor clarification question for your implementation report. (And thanks for sending it!) On 6/26/26 09:57, Rajaguru Veluchamy (rvelucha) wrote: > > Hi Team, > > Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc > > Implementation Name: > > IOS XR Version 4.0 > > IOS XE Version 12.0(31)S2 > > IOS NX Version 5.0(2) > Are these separate code bases for BFD that might constitute completely independent implementations? We'll be asking this for similar multi-implementation reports from the same vendor. Thanks! -- Jeff
- Implementation/Conformance Poll for rfc5880 (draf… Alvaro Retana
- RE: Implementation/Conformance Poll for rfc5880 (… Rajaguru Veluchamy (rvelucha)
- Re: Implementation/Conformance Poll for rfc5880 (… Jeffrey Haas
- RE: Implementation/Conformance Poll for rfc5880 (… Rajaguru Veluchamy (rvelucha)
- RE: Implementation/Conformance Poll for rfc5880 (… Rajaguru Veluchamy (rvelucha)
- RE: Implementation/Conformance Poll for rfc5880 (… Rajaguru Veluchamy (rvelucha)
- Re: Implementation/Conformance Poll for rfc5880 (… xiao.min2
- Re: Implementation/Conformance Poll for rfc5880 (… Mahesh Jethanandani