Greg, On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:34:19AM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote: > it is also my impression that the concept described in the draft is > different from the Passive role as defined in RFC 5880. I think that needs > to be clearly explained in the draft and, it seems to be helpful to even > use another term to avoid any possible confusion.
I spent some time reviewing the text of the draft and I don't think I agree with this statement. Section 2, Procuedures for Unsolicited BFD, has the following as its first paragraph: : With "unsolicited BFD", one side takes the "Active role" and the : other side takes only the "Passive role" as described in [RFC5880]. : On the passive side, the "unsolicited BFD" SHOULD be explicitly : configured on an interface or globally (apply to all interfaces). : The BFD parameters can be either per-interface or per-router based. : It MAY also choose to use the parameters that the active side uses in : its BFD Control packets. The "My Discriminator", however, MUST be : chosen to allow multiple unsolicited BFD sessions. Passive is covered in RFC 5880 section 6.1: : A system may take either an Active role or a Passive role in session : initialization. A system taking the Active role MUST send BFD : Control packets for a particular session, regardless of whether it : has received any BFD packets for that session. A system taking the : Passive role MUST NOT begin sending BFD packets for a particular : session until it has received a BFD packet for that session, and thus : has learned the remote system's discriminator value. At least one : system MUST take the Active role (possibly both). The role that a : system takes is specific to the application of BFD, and is outside : the scope of this specification. In the unsolicited draft: - The passive side is not sending packets. - It is waiting for an incoming session. I don't see a mismatch of expected behaviors. -- Jeff
