Thanks, Acee. This was designed with idea of where some platform does not support BFD HW offload due to its limitation so we might end of running them in SW mode.
So, there might be chances of running in Mixed mode (SW and HW), those cases we should be able to differentiate between them. This would be useful in those places. Also, this can be enhanced to add few more items like HW counters to display BFD Tx/Rx rate. Regards V.Rajaguru XR/BFD/PI From: Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2023 12:29 AM To: Rajaguru Veluchamy (rvelucha) <rvelucha=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org>; Reshad Rahman <res...@yahoo.com>; t petch <ie...@btconnect.com>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Rajaguru Veluchamy (rvelucha) <rvelu...@cisco.com> Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-rvelucha-bfd-offload-yang-05.txt Importance: High Hi Rajaguru, Why would anyone not want a BFD session to be offloaded to hardware? Why would this be configurable? I don’t see this augmentation as useful. Thanks, Acee On Jul 17, 2023, at 11:13, Rajaguru Veluchamy (rvelucha) <rvelucha=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:rvelucha=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Kindly request for update on this please! Regards V.Rajaguru XR/BFD/PI From: Rajaguru Veluchamy (rvelucha) <rvelu...@cisco.com<mailto:rvelu...@cisco.com>> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 9:16 AM To: Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org<mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>>; Reshad Rahman <res...@yahoo.com<mailto:res...@yahoo.com>> Cc: t petch <ie...@btconnect.com<mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Rajaguru Veluchamy (rvelucha) <rvelu...@cisco.com<mailto:rvelu...@cisco.com>> Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-rvelucha-bfd-offload-yang-05.txt HI Team, Would request for your kind opinion on this please. Let me know for any question over here glad to reply. Regards V.Rajaguru XR/BFD/PI From: Rajaguru Veluchamy (rvelucha) <rvelu...@cisco.com<mailto:rvelu...@cisco.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 3:23 PM To: Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org<mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>>; Reshad Rahman <res...@yahoo.com<mailto:res...@yahoo.com>> Cc: t petch <ie...@btconnect.com<mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Rajaguru Veluchamy (rvelucha) <rvelu...@cisco.com<mailto:rvelu...@cisco.com>> Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-rvelucha-bfd-offload-yang-05.txt HI Team, Can we have WG adoption for this draft please. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rvelucha-bfd-offload-yang/ Regards V.Rajaguru XR/BFD/PI From: Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org<mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 5:51 AM To: Reshad Rahman <res...@yahoo.com<mailto:res...@yahoo.com>> Cc: t petch <ie...@btconnect.com<mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>>; Rajaguru Veluchamy (rvelucha) <rvelu...@cisco.com<mailto:rvelu...@cisco.com>>; Rajaguru Veluchamy (rvelucha) <rvelu...@cisco.com<mailto:rvelu...@cisco.com>>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org> Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-rvelucha-bfd-offload-yang-05.txt Reshad, On Apr 25, 2023, at 1:53 PM, Reshad Rahman <res...@yahoo.com<mailto:res...@yahoo.com>> wrote: <RR> Not just the name, but the description. In this case the description says "running in hardware". Sometimes that line is blurry, e.g. is VPP considered hardware? Should the description instead say something along the times of "running in forwarding plane". [...] <RR> The BFD implementation I worked on many years ago was distributed to linecards for SH (for scale) but was not "offloaded", in that there was no h/w assist. A good distinction. Juniper has implementations that run on the "linecard CPU" and some that are built into the ASIC. I don't know whether it's worth distinguishing the variants in the model. For both of these cases, Juniper calls it "distributed". However, "running on the linecards/forwarding plane" is a reasonable approximation. -- Jeff
