Hi Reshad, > On Feb 23, 2021, at 7:15 PM, Reshad Rahman > <reshad=40yahoo....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Hi Albert, > > Apologies for the delay in replying. > > I believe (no hat) that there is value in adding counters to expose > drop-related info. We should look into augmenting the BFD YANG model, not > sure whether we should add that in the stability draft… I would like to hear > from the WG.
+1 Done. However, the document now needs a YANG Doctor review. Do you think you can take a quick review of it? > > Regards, > Reshad. > > From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Albert Fu (BLOOMBERG/ > 120 PARK)" <af...@bloomberg.net> > Reply-To: Albert Fu <af...@bloomberg.net> > Date: Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 2:06 PM > To: <rtg-bfd@ietf.org> > Subject: Re:Rtg-bfd Digest, Vol 178, Issue 5 > >> Hi, >> >> 1. Re: New Version Notification for >> draft-ietf-bfd-stability-07.txt (Reshad Rahman) >> >> This feature is good to have. As a matter of fact, we have been trying to >> get vendors to expose BFD counters as we know links from carriers do drop >> packets without any indication of errors, and the basic send/receive >> counters are not reliable indicators, since the timers are randomized up to >> 25% lower. >> >> The draft talks about geneation of diagnostic info but no details. I would >> think syslog is not practical for large network. What do you think about >> mentioning keeping counters of missing seq numbers, and have these counters >> exposed to telemetry/snmp? This would be very useful to us. >> >> Thanks >> >> Albert Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
