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

Suping Zhai <> Wed, 26 October 2005 01:29 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EUa6p-0002TT-U8; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:29:43 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EUa6o-0002RM-3Q for; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:29:42 -0400
Received: from (ietf-mx []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11949 for <>; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:29:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EUaJq-0005e3-3o for; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:43:12 -0400
Received: from (szxga02-in []) by (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <> for; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:35:32 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxml01-in ([]) by (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <> for; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:35:31 +0800 (CST)
Received: from z11024 ([]) by (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <>; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:38:45 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:27:39 +0800
From: Suping Zhai <>
To: Dave Katz <>, bfd <>, Pekka Savola <>
Message-id: <>
Organization: huawei
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Foxmail 4.2 [cn]
Content-type: text/plain; charset="GB2312"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Re: BFD w/ static routes and single-hop eBGP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Perhaps what we, at least Pekka and me, concern is that we should have a very clear definition of what eBGP should do in order to bootstrap BFD, and what is the specific interactions between BGP and BFD session.
What I want to further to do is that as well as BGP, how the RIP(v2) should react when run with BFD, regarding to the BFD bootstrapping and interactions with BFD.
Or else there is no strict rules to run BFD in various situations, and the result will be that the interoperation become a problem. Just a few pages can solve this problem, why do we wait and see:(

Best Regards,
>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.)
>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