Xiao Min, Thank you for researching this. That brings the count of implementations that don't support such behavior to at least two.
-- Jeff > On Oct 19, 2022, at 11:23 PM, <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> > wrote: > > Jeff, Sasha, Reshad, et al., > > > > Please see inline... > > > > Best Regards, > > Xiao Min > > Original > From: JeffreyHaas <jh...@pfrc.org> > To: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>; > Cc: Reshad Rahman <res...@yahoo.com>;BFD WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Nitsan Dolev > <nitsan.do...@rbbn.com>;Shell Nakash <shell.nak...@rbbn.com>;James Lian > <james.l...@rbbn.com>; > Date: 2022年10月20日 04:17 > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: A missing read/write attribute in RFC 9314? > Sasha, > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 08:07:06PM +0000, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: > > And I have not encountered implementations by other vendors that support > > this option (with or without the knob in question). My guess (FWIW) is that > > this would make an implementation much more complicated while the benefits > > would be minimal. > > BFD on LAG was a contentious and fussy bit of RFC work. Much of the earlier > headache about whether multicast or unicast MACs were to be involved had to > do with chip details. However, I suspect as time has passed and it's become > a more common feature across the vendors, things may have stabilized. > > > So I think that we indeed need a survey you have proposed. > > I've internally enquired about this at Juniper. > > A brief survey of some other implementations' manuals doesn't seem to > suggest any knob for this behavior. It'd be good to get more formal > statement of compliance from these vendors. > > [XM]>>> I've consulted my colleagues having implemented BFD on LAG at ZTE, > only the dedicated multicast MAC is used and there is no any knob (also not > suggested). > > > > If there are no implementations exercising optional behavior, deprecating > > it in 7130 could be considered as well. > > Absolutely. That would be an appropriate errata response once we have some > data. > > [XM]>>> Yes, it seems more appropriate to take action on RFC 7130 rather than > 9314. > > > -- Jeff > >
