Hi Ketan, Sure, looking forward to the clarification in the draft on multi-hop BFD..
Just curious, are there interoperable implementations for OSPF multi-hop BFD strict mode for virtual links or p2p unnumbered interfaces? Regards, Muthu On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 5:36 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Muthu, > > When we say a "link" here, it is in the context of the OSPF interface and > neighbor FSM. My understanding is that this term includes virtual links as > well. As such, we can add some text in the introduction section to clarify > the same and also put a reference to RFC5883 for BFD multi-hop use for > VLINKs. > > I hope that works for you. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 11:05 AM Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Ketan, >> >> Thanks for your response.. >> >> The draft says: >> <snip> >> This document defines the B-bit in the LLS Type 1 Extended Options >> and Flags field. This bit is defined for the LLS block included in >> Hello and Database Description (DD) packets and >> *indicates that BFD is enabled on the link* and that the router >> requests strict-mode for BFD. >> </smip> >> >> You don't enable multi-hop BFD on a link, instead you enable it b/w two >> (multi-hop) routers, right? >> >> How about replacing it with: >> indicates that (1) single-hop BFD [RFC5881] is enabled on the link in >> case of point-to-point (numbered) and LAN interfaces, and (2) multi-hop BFD >> [RFC5883] is enabled between the neighbors in case of virtual links and >> point-to-point unnumbered interfaces. >> >> Also, add a note at the beginning of the draft that BFD refers to both >> single-hop and multi-hop BFD when not explicitly specified.. >> >> Regards, >> Muthu >> >> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:40 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Muthu, >>> >>> Thanks for your review and your support. >>> >>> Regarding your question, I would like to clarify that this document >>> doesn't specify BFD operations with OSPF. That was done by RFC5882. Indeed >>> for virtual links, there would need to be a BFD multi-hop session and the >>> same would apply to p-t-p unnumbered. >>> >>> However, I am not sure what specific applicability or operations need to >>> be called out for Strict Mode of operations for those links. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ketan >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 12:52 PM Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I support the draft. A quick question: >>>> Should it describe the applicability of the mechanism over OSPF virtual >>>> links and unnumbered interfaces? With virtual links, one would have to >>>> establish a multi-hop BFD session, so it is slightly different from a BFD >>>> operational standpoint. For e.g, capability to support single-hop BFD may >>>> not translate to the capability to support multi-hop BFD.. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Muthu >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:38 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee= >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> LSR WG, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This begins a two week last call for the subject draft. Please >>>>> indicate your support or objection on this list prior to 12:00 AM UTC on >>>>> February 11th, 20222. Also, review comments are certainly welcome. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Acee >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Lsr mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >>>>> >>>>
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
