Re:Rtg-bfd Digest, Vol 164, Issue 24

["Albert Fu (BLOOMBERG/ 120 PARK)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,


> Dear WG,
> 
> Thank you Gyan for your note.
>
> It very clearly highlights my primary concern expressed earlier of false
> assumptions on how engineers may try to (mis)use bfd-large in multihop
> cases.
>
> Below note is a brilliant example of how one may not realize that actual
> paths BFD packets take can be just a fraction of paths their data plane or
> even other control plane packets may traverse over a network or set of
> networks.
>
> I am always concerned when protocol extensions being standardized are known
> to only work in 1 out of 10 deployment scenarios and when chances of such
> opportunity of incorrect use are evident yet no safety inline fuse exist.
> 
> Many thx,
> Robert.

As mentioned previously, there are well known cases where BFD can not determine data plane error, and this is not unique to the BFD Large Packet Draft.


I do not know how other customers use BFD, but can say that in our network, almost all of our BFD use cases are P2P (IGP/eBGP) (and also Control-plane independent), where BFD Large Packet draft will be very useful and deterministic in identifying the issue as it happens.


Thanks

Albert