Re: Correcting BFD Echo model

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Reshad,
thank you for the question. Here's my reasoning:

   - only Required Min Echo RX Interval is present in RFC 5880 and it
   allows to indicate not only the smallest interval between consecutive BFD
   Echo packets but whether system supports BFD Echo function at all;
   - since BFD Echo may be transmitted only when the session state is Up,
   operator is fully equipped to learn the value of Required Min Echo RX
   Interval of its BFD peer and to set Echo transmit interval accordingly;
   - requesting BFD Echo, in my opinion, is no different from requesting IP
   ping or LSP ping.

Hence my conclusion - transmit interval for BFD Echo is more suitable in
RPC then as configuration parameter.

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> Can you please explain why you believe this should go in RPC?
>
> Regards,
> Reshad.
>
> From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> Date: Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:48 PM
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Correcting BFD Echo model
> Resent-From: <[e-mail]>
> Resent-To: <[e-mail]>, Reshad <[e-mail]>, <
> [e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <
> [e-mail]>
> Resent-Date: Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:48 PM
>
> Dear All,
> I've reviewed the BFD YANG model and now I'm thinking that desired-min-echo-tx-interval
> and attributing to it the behavior, i.e. when the value is 0, of Required
> Min Echo RX Interval are not in the right place. I think that definition of
> desired transmit interval of BFD Echo should be in corresponding RPC
> definition, not in configuration part of the model.
> Appreciate your comments.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>