I’m not aware of an implementation taking in the inbound BFD packets, then dynamically seting up a session to the received packet sender end-point. As Jeff mentioned Redback planed on this, but didn’t implement. So there most likely needs some BFD implementation changes.
Regards, - Naiming > On Oct 29, 2018, at 4:52 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > The problem the draft addresses is valid and makes sense to address. But I > know there are implementations which have addressed this issue w/o requiring > any changes to their BFD implementation - so I am not sure how popular this > solution will be. > > So long as this stays Informational I think it is fine to adopt. I would not > be as enthused if this is moved to Standards track. > > Les > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas >> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 8:53 AM >> To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org >> Cc: draft-chen-bfd-unsolici...@ietf.org >> Subject: WG Adoption for draft-chen-bfd-unsolicted >> >> Working Group, >> >> Reviewing my notes, I was remiss in sending out an adoption request for >> draft-chen-bfd-unsolicted (Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applications). >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited/ >> >> This relatively minor change from the RFC 5880 spec is implemented by at >> least one vendor for static route configuration. Its security >> considerations already cover what I believe to be the main concern with the >> procedural change. >> >> There's a minor point to resolve regarding the document's status - currently >> Informational - with our AD. >> >> Please indicate whether you'd support adopting this draft as a Working >> Group >> document. >> >> Authors, please indicate if you're aware of any applicable IPR on it. >> >> This adoption request will also end on Friday, November 9, IETF 103 Friday. >> >> -- Jeff & Reshad >
