Jeff - I note that no one supports "large-packets" today. So is the gap between supporting echo mode for this purpose any larger than the gap for introducing large packet support?
Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 9:42 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > Cc: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrah...@cisco.com>; Naiming Shen > (naiming) <naim...@cisco.com>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: Re: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 04:39:04PM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > > Given the MTU issue is associated with a link coming up - and the use of > Echo would allow the problem to be detected and prevent the BFD session > from coming up - > > and you are acknowledging that the protocol allows padded Echo packets > today ... > > > > is there really a need to do anything more? > > ... the fact that the majority of BFD implementations on the planet do not > support Echo mode? > > Not to mention my whole comment that BFD Echo is intentionally > under-specified. The result being that any attempt to specify anything in > it will likely cause interop headaches. > > -- Jeff
