Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:14:50PM +0000, Nobo Akiya (nobo) wrote:
> If what you say is the only requirement not met, one approach may be to pursue a non-standard-track document describing some suggested implementation techniques to locally store TX/RX timestamp.
> 
> Given that echo approach will be less accurate and given that we seem to be having difficulty converging, I thought I???ll throw out another idea.

I think my biggest concern is that the echo approach has bidirectional
packet loss possibilities.  Async at least lets the receiver know about
unidirectional packet loss.

Of course, if your goal is to notify the sender that their packets are being
lost, you need a backchannel anyway.  I just don't know if we want that back
channel to be bfd.

- Jeff