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

[Pekka Savola <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, David Ward wrote:
[...]
> This is stated already.

A lot of things are stated already, in generic context.  What I'd like 
to see is a brief, normative description how those apply to protocol 
Foo.  If there's nothing to say (e.g., with static routes) one or two 
sentences may be enough; if there is little to say (e.g., eBGP), maybe 
a couple of paragraphs is enough.

>> The third party nexthop case is the more interesting one.  I believe
>> you'd want a BFD session for each third party nexthop.
>>
>
> I disagree here. The reason being ... What do you care about the
> intermediate NHs wrt the EBGP bootstrapping since you can route to/through
> different intermediate NH? [...]

I agree with Dave here.  BGP hello mechanism does not monitor the 
liveness of the 3rd party nexthops, and therefore I think it goes 
beyond the scope of BFD to do that, even though BFD is meant to detect 
forwarding problems (which obviously would happen if the 3rd party 
next-hop would go away).

(It might not hurt as an extension, but we don't see a need for it.)

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