Re: I-D ACTION:draft-shen-bfd-intf-p2p-nbr-00.txt

[Naiming Shen <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 3, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Nitin Bahadur wrote:

>
>
>>> Also, with the draft you are tying in the concept of a link failure
> to a
>>> bfd session failure...which might not necessarily be true. BFD
> sessions
>>> might fail due to firewall filters, IP packet handling errors. You
> would
>>> need more tools to tell the customer/operator that the link is
> *actually
>>> not down* and it's BFD that has marked the link as down.
>>
>> to be honest, generate an meaningful error message saying 'intf-p2p
> bfd
>> brought down intf' will probably do for most of the customers.
>
> I would be happy if you can note in the draft that the bfd session
> failure does not necessarily mean that the physical link/ 
> connectivity is
> down and bfd should not be used in place of link-layer OAM mechanisms.

For the first one, I can add that it does not mean the physical link  
has to
be down; the second one, this draft does not claim to replace the OAM
functionality. this draft is only trying to be the BFD with a simple  
scheme.

thanks.
- Naiming

>
> Comments by Dave Katz & Tom Nadeau seem to have addressed all other
> issues.
>
> Thanks
> Nitin