Re: draft-ietf-bfd-base-03.txt comments

[Dave Katz <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 17, 2005, at 10:44 AM, Chezhian Renganathan wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Section 6.7.4 -
> Unless I am missing something, it seems to me that the statement in  
> braces
> "roughly speaking, due to jitter"
> should be applicable in the context of Detection Time rather than  
> DetectMult.
> The DetectMult is just number of packets and there is no variance  
> there with
> jitter.

The text in the document is correct.  DetectMult is used to calculate  
time, not count packets, so given the application of jitter, the  
number of packets missed is approximate (if DetectMult were 10, for  
example, the actual number of packets missed before detection might  
be as high as 13 if 25% jitter is applied and the timing is right.)

>
> Also, was there any thinking along the lines of making the "Reg Min  
> Echo RX
> Interval" field optional, keeping with the spirit of this function,  
> being optional
> with either modes. This field could potentially be set to all zeros  
> for the entire
> length of a session unless changed if the end systems support this  
> function.

Not sure exactly what you're saying here.  To actually leave out the  
field and shorten the packet four bytes?  I'm not sure what would be  
gained by this.  The processing cost would be higher (Is the field  
there?  What is the value?) and the difference in packet size  
negligible.

As it stands now, the field can be set to zero if the sender does not  
wish or is not able to support the echo function.

Perhaps I don't understand the question.

--Dave

>
> thanks,
> chez
>
>
>