I found the BFD transmit interval was lowerbounded by the default value without
warning, although documentation does not consider a lowerbound.
Testing has been performed with transmit and receive intervals as low as 1 ms,
and although CPU overhead was effected (especially with multiple BFD sessions
such as 6 and higher), it worked well.
Signed-off-by: Niels van Adrichem <n.l.m.vanadric...@tudelft.nl>
---
I consider the operational results (CPU overhead) from very short transmit
intervals the network administrator's responsibility, as the default values
offer a correctly functioning cpu-effective but slower detection. I hope you
agree.
lib/bfd.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/bfd.c b/lib/bfd.c
index 7884fc6..7f6bf5b 100644
--- a/lib/bfd.c
+++ b/lib/bfd.c
@@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ bfd_configure(struct bfd *bfd, const char *name, const
struct smap *cfg,
atomic_store_relaxed(&bfd->check_tnl_key,
smap_get_bool(cfg, "check_tnl_key", false));
min_tx = smap_get_int(cfg, "min_tx", 100);
- min_tx = MAX(min_tx, 100);
+ min_tx = MAX(min_tx, 1);
if (bfd->cfg_min_tx != min_tx) {
bfd->cfg_min_tx = min_tx;
if (bfd->state != STATE_UP
@@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ bfd_configure(struct bfd *bfd, const char *name, const
struct smap *cfg,
}
min_rx = smap_get_int(cfg, "min_rx", 1000);
- min_rx = MAX(min_rx, 100);
+ min_rx = MAX(min_rx, 1);
if (bfd->cfg_min_rx != min_rx) {
bfd->cfg_min_rx = min_rx;
if (bfd->state != STATE_UP
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
