Dear WG, Thank you Gyan for your note.
It very clearly highlights my primary concern expressed earlier of false assumptions on how engineers may try to (mis)use bfd-large in multihop cases. Below note is a brilliant example of how one may not realize that actual paths BFD packets take can be just a fraction of paths their data plane or even other control plane packets may traverse over a network or set of networks. I am always concerned when protocol extensions being standardized are known to only work in 1 out of 10 deployment scenarios and when chances of such opportunity of incorrect use are evident yet no safety inline fuse exist. Many thx, Robert. On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 1:29 AM Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com> wrote: > All, > > I support this draft as I think this would be very useful for IPv6 use > cases where EH headers are utilized excessively such as for an SRv6 use > case for traffic engineering over the internet and would be a method to > test via BFD multihop the path mtu where pmtud has failed to adjust MSS on > endpoints due to firewalls or other devices dropping ICMP unreachable > packet to big messages resulting in 1280 mtu. >
