Is it better to use “reflection mode”? Aijun Wang China Telecom
> 在 2022年3月1日，20:38，Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> 写道： > > 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 >
