Dear Authors,
I did my shepherd review on this concise draft. Comments are as below.
== Section 1 & 2
* As a new reader of this draft, I wonder whether it's possible to merge the
two sections.
* Even more, I noticed there is another WG draft
(draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-bfd-p2p) talking
about the applicability of p2p BFD for fast failure detection in VRRP, so I
wonder whether
it's possible to merge the two drafts.
== Section 3
* This section extends VRRP advertisement packet to bootstrap a tail of the
p2mp BFD session.
As far as I understand, VRRP advertisement is sent by a Active Router to one or
more Backup
Routers, and there is no any response from the Backup Routers, and as tails of
the p2mp BFD
session the Backup Routers wouldn't send BFD Control packets to the head of the
p2mp
BFD session which is the Active Router, so it's not clear to me how the Active
Router can determine
the extended VRRP advertisement packet has been received and demultiplexed by
the Backup
Routers correctly.
* To make the term consistent with RFC 8562, s/root/head.
* "As a result, the Backup Router may become the Active router of the given
Virtual Router or continue as a Backup Router."
For readability, suggest to break the sentences following the above one into
two bullets, among which
one bullet for "if the former is the case" and another bullet for "if the
latter is the case".
== Section 3.1
* Suggest to add bullets on how to set the source and destination MAC address.
Note that in Section 7.2
of RFC 9568 it specifies that VRRP packets MUST set the source MAC address to
the Virtual Router MAC
address, is it the same rule applied to BFD Control packets for VRRP? Please
specify.
* If any, please specify how to set the source UDP port.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
