> On Mar 27, 2025, at 5:42 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Acee, > AFAIK, there's at least one implementation of RFC 8562, which is the type of > p2mp BFD used in this draft. Also, I should note that the failure detection > mechanism in RFC 9026 Multicast VPN Fast Upstream Failover is RFC 8562 p2mp > BFD.
Is this P2MP BFD or BFD on P2MP LSPs that someone has implemented? If I'm correct, then you'd require P2MP LSPs for VRRP? Thanks, Acee > > Regards, > Greg > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 3:22 AM Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Is P2MP BFD widely deployed or even implemented? I know FRR doesn't support > it. > > Also, prior to WG last call, can you provide the ietf-vrrp.yang augmentations > the draft that would be needed to support this feature (both config and > operational state)? > > Thanks, > Acee > > > On Mar 21, 2025, at 4:34 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > As noted in the RTGWG meeting at IETF-122, two WG documents describe > > BFD-based solutions in support of faster convergence in the VRRP > > environment. Although both drafts use BFD mechanisms, these mechanisms are > > significantly distinct, resulting in very different modifications to the > > RFC 9568 VRRPv3 specification required by each solution. At some point in > > the past, a single draft documents both solutions. Since the solutions > > split, it seems that draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd has evolved and is now > > ready for the WG LC. Hence, the question to the WG: > > • Do you object to maintaining and publishing separate documents that > > document BFD-based solutions in support of faster VRRP convergence? > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > _______________________________________________ > > rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
