Thanks for the reminder, Reshad. I support publication of this document, short and useful.
I only have one comment in regards to: It is also worthy of note that even if an implementation can function with larger transport PDUs, that additional packet size may have impact on BFD scaling. Such systems may support a lower transmission interval (bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval) when operating in large packet mode. This interval may depend on the size of the transport PDU. Instead of (or in addition to) a lower transmission interval, why not add flexibility to not *have* to send large packets every packet, and instead send every n paks or so? Thanks! Carlos. On Sep 9, 2019, at 10:55 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> wrote: BFD WG, reminder that WGLC is ongoing for this document. Regards, Reshad. From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 12:34 PM To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>> Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets BFD WG, As was mentioned at IETF105, this document is stable and there was an interop test done between FRR and Junos VMX. Please provide comments/feedback on the document. The deadline for last call is September 13th. Regards, Reshad & Jeff.
