Re: MIB question - default BFD enable status?

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 12, 2005, at 12:54 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
>
>>> But even if we do, I don't think this global feature is even  
>>> needed -- isn't it enough to have interface, protocol, or other  
>>> status values which the operators can then snmpwalk through ?
>>>
>>
>>    I know of at least one implementation that has BFD as a global
>> configuration.
>>
>
> Let's take an analogue.  Does the same implementation have a global  
> configuration to enable/disable BGP?  BGP and BFD sessions seem  
> like similar beasts, and similar management techniques apply.

     I fail to see how that matters in the case of single-hop BFD.

> I can only see (real) usefulness for session-based controls (and  
> "enable BGP/BFD" toggle without session-specific config is quite  
> questionable), but others might have different requirements so this  
> isn't really a big issue to get too excited about.

     When you are talking about single-hop BFD, it indeed
makes sense to configure per box and/or per interface (and
per session).

     --Tom


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