Hi Carlos, > On Sep 12, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpign...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > 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?
Wouldn’t that have a problem that one packet lost every n packets would still keep the BFD session up? Cheers. > > 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. >
