Re: BFD queries

Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net> Tue, 25 October 2005 05:56 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EUHnQ-000461-VK; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:56:28 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EUHnO-00045t-6q for rtg-bfd@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:56:26 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21992 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:56:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from www8.cruzio.com ([63.249.95.19]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EUI0H-0006sV-UB for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 02:09:46 -0400
Received: from [172.16.12.139] (pcp08543197pcs.sntafe01.nm.comcast.net [68.35.73.229]) by www8.cruzio.com with ESMTP id j9P5uKbV081828; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BD6DEA8C77182E4586B6BE33532EA48D38CBCB@HYD-MKD-MBX01.wipro.com>
References: <BD6DEA8C77182E4586B6BE33532EA48D38CBCB@HYD-MKD-MBX01.wipro.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-1--558765324"
Message-Id: <4EC26AA8-039A-46B1-8D27-25806ADA83E2@juniper.net>
From: Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:56:13 -0600
To: kalpana.yenishetti@wipro.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734)
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 67c1ea29f88502ef6a32ccec927970f0
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: BFD queries
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org

On Oct 24, 2005, at 11:14 PM, kalpana.yenishetti@wipro.com wrote:

> Hi
>
>
>
> I have following query from the BFD draft
>
>
>
> When a BFD session is established between two nodes in a network,  
> and if one of the system sends a BFD control packet with POLL bit  
> set to change any the Min Tx/Rx intervals and the receives response  
> to the previous BFD packet. This could lead to situation where  
> sender assuming his request for configuration change for Min Tx/Rx  
> intervals is declined.
The intervals cannot be "declined" as they are entirely unilateral in  
each direction (which is an important design consideration in the  
protocol.)  The packet with Final lets the system know that the other  
system has seen the change and, for example, won't time out if the  
sender wants to transmit at a slower rate.

> If the choosen transport protocol for BFD transmission is UDP, the  
> FIN bit set packet is lost then there will be discrepancy the  
> configuration between the configured nodes.
This is why the poll is sent repeatedly until a final is heard.

--Dave