Thanks Mark I will try to enable BFD for rsvp and monitor if the convergence time will improve.
Regards, Emmanuel On Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 00:43 Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 12/Apr/20 21:58, Hari Sapkota wrote: > > Hi Emmanuel, > > > > The RSVP should be informed in the case of link failure since BFD runs on > > the line card and detects failure in quicker way. In order to terminate > > RSVP signaling without having to wait for the hold timer, the BFD should > be > > bound to the RSVP so that the headend router can signal the use of backup > > tunnel. I hope you have already provisioned the backup tunnel for the > > temporary use by the PLR till the recalculation of new RSVP path is > > completed. > > What we've generally done is make sure the lowest level protocol reacts > as quickly as possible. This way, it's (quick) reaction would inform > lateral or upper-layer protocols to react accordingly. > > So we tune IS-IS to react quickly, and enable BFD just for it. > > We haven't found the need to enable BFD for BGP, LDP, and other > upper-layer protocols that rely on the IGP to function. > > But stuff like this is not a one-size-fits-all. > > Mark. > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
