Re: MIB question - default BFD enable status?
Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Mon, 15 August 2005 16:00 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E4hOU-0002NW-W1; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:00:58 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E4hOT-0002NQ-Ti for rtg-bfd@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:00:58 -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 MAA10252 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:00:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from gateout02.mbox.net ([165.212.64.22] helo=gwo2.mbox.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E4hxc-00026F-Q3 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:37:18 -0400
Received: from gateout02.mbox.net (gateout02.mbox.net [165.212.64.22]) by gwo2.mbox.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 71DAE163C93; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:00:41 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from gateout02.mbox.net [165.212.64.22] by gateout02.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.17K) with ESMTP id 882JHoqaO0004Mo2; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:00:40 GMT
Received: from gw4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [165.212.116.254] by gateout02.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.21U); Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:00:40 GMT
X-USANET-Source: 165.212.116.254 IN jhaas@nexthop.com gw4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET
X-USANET-MsgId: XID911JHoqaO3211Xo2
Received: from localhost ([65.247.36.31]) by gw4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:00:39 -0600
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:00:39 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Message-ID: <20050815160038.GA5530@nexthop.com>
References: <20050810201652.GS5530@nexthop.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508110755350.25486@netcore.fi> <31E8370C-8A00-4451-AB12-73B1A696CC58@cisco.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508120752470.20788@netcore.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508120752470.20788@netcore.fi>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Aug 2005 16:00:39.0952 (UTC) FILETIME=[7B94B100:01C5A1B2]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Cc: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>, rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: MIB question - default BFD enable status?
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 Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 07:54:59AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: > 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. I believe that the ability to configure BFD sessions from within the MIB to probably be a dead-end. In order for BFD to function well it requires strong coordination with other protocols. In other words, it doesn't make a good stand-alone protocol. Thus, as part of my MIB review comments to Tom, I'm suggesting that many of the read-create aspects of the session table be removed or, at best, be made read-write. Arguments the other way would be appreciated during this review period. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies
- MIB question - default BFD enable status? Jeffrey Haas
- Re: MIB question - default BFD enable status? Pekka Savola
- Re: MIB question - default BFD enable status? Thomas D. Nadeau
- Re: MIB question - default BFD enable status? Pekka Savola
- Re: MIB question - default BFD enable status? Thomas D. Nadeau
- RE: MIB question - default BFD enable status? richard.spencer
- Re: MIB question - default BFD enable status? Jeffrey Haas