Re: Correcting BFD Echo model

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff, et. al,
attached are two slides to remind how RFC 5880 describes BFD Echo and its
use, per my understanding. As well as outline of two models to present Echo
BFD in data model. Appreciate your comments, suggestions. Will be glad to
update the slides or feel free to hop on and edit them directly.

Regards,
Greg



On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> [continuing the top-posting heresy to preserve context]
>
> Greg,
>
> Our schedule is relatively open right now, and this matter is esoteric
> enough that it probably warrants a slide for the majority of the Working
> Group to follow this issue.  Would you prepare a slide or two to use as a
> discussion point?
>
> I'll also use this opportunity to point out that in S-BFD scenarios, we
> have
> somewhat similar ambiguities since it's an on-demand service.
>
> -- Jeff
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 07:31:01AM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> > Hi Reshad,
> > thank you for providing the context to BFD Echo TX. Indeed, I'm familiar
> > with implementations that use BFD Echo as Echo request/reply and thus Tx
> > would be in RPC, not in configuration. I think that it would be good to
> > discuss this in Chicago unless we hear comments from others on the list.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <
> [e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Greg,
> > >
> > > draft-zheng-mpls-ls-ping-yang-cfg defines transmit interval in RPC
> > > because all ping operations are done via RPC.  I do not consider BFD
> echo
> > > to be “on demand” like LSP Ping (caveat: this is possibly due to the
> BFD
> > > configuration/implementation I am most familiar with).
>
>