On August 31, 2021 at 4:51:17 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: Jeff:
Hi! Thanks for looking at this document! ... > If I were to re-state the longer version of the draft's name, this is > effectively "using BFD-MP to let PIM hello procedures fail faster". If > that's an adequate assessment, perhaps the title might be adjusted a bit. > > I think Alvaro's point is that this is really covering a small bit of > PIM procedure and it sounds like it's intended to be a lot more broad from > the document title. Yup, that's the point. :-) ... > My second concern is shorter. Section 2.3 recommends that the p2mp BFD > sessions use a TTL of 255 and reference the GTSM procedures in RFC 5881. > However, since the destination address is a multicast group and the > underlying PIM protocol uses a TTL of 1 for its messages, I'm not sure the > 255 is appropriate for this use case. The draft originally (-05) required using a TTL of 1, but I asked Greg to change it because both rfc5880/rfc5881 require the use of GTSM -- they don't talk about any exceptions, and rfc8562 doesn't mention TTL at all. I find it very hard to justify a change in the BFD requirements; the BFD documents specify what the BFD behavior is, independent of the application. In this case, PIM just benefits from it. I'm not saying that the requirements can't be changed -- but if we were going to do that we would need some more discussion in the BFD WG. Thanks! Alvaro.
