I support publication of this draft. It is a useful OAM building block.
Thanks,
Donald
===
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:14 PM Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> Working
I think it is important to understand the intent of why the large packets are
being sent. For example, if the idea is to be able to transport a large size
packet without dropping it in the path, then there might be little or no
processing of the payload of the packet; just the fact that we recei
Probably just bandwidth increase, and if you need encryption/decryption on the
packets,
then large packets will cost more in CPU.
thanks.
- Naiming
On Oct 22, 2018, at 11:08 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani
mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think it is important to understand the intent of why
Hi,
1. From Albert’s presentation @ IETF102, the motivation for doing
this is to have BFD fail if the expected MTU can not be met, and therefore for
traffic to be rerouted as a result. So I think this is the use case we should
stick with but I’d like to know if others think otherwise.
2.
Reshad –
Inline.
From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 1:02 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Naiming Shen (naiming)
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets
Hi,
1) From Albert’s presentation @ IETF102, the motivation for
d
