Hi All,
Multihop BFD (RFC 5883) packets are sent over UDP/IP. The encapsulation
used is identical to single hop BFD (RFC 5881) except that the UDP
destination port is set to 4784.
Now, suppose on the ingress node there is no IP/LFA backup path for the
destination address tracked by multihop BFD,
Hi,
I think that the fact that “control” packets can benefit of FRR is really
implementation dependent. It is also linked to the place where BFD packets are
created (RP or LC).
From a theoretical point of view, nothing prevents FRR to be used as for any
packet generated by the router itself.
Re
Hi Stephane,
Thanks for your response. Please see inline..
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 3:27 PM wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I think that the fact that “control” packets can benefit of FRR is really
> implementation dependent. It is also linked to the place where BFD packets
> are created (RP or LC).
>
> Fr
Muthu,
Regarding the question in your 2nd email “Do we know of any implementation that
provides RLFA FRR protection to multihop BFD packets?”
My employer (ECI Telecom) has implemented multi-hop IP BFD protected by IP FRR
(including local and remote LFA) with encapsulation that follows RFC 5883.
(
Muthu, and all,
A minor correction: s/iBGP peers/remote BGP Next Hops/ in my previous email.
Regards,
Sasha
Office: +972-39266302
Cell: +972-549266302
Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 2:20 PM
To: 'Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal'
Muthu,
Multihop BFD provides liveness monitoring of a remote end point while LFA/rLFA
provides protection of a local resource.
Theory:
If Multihop BFD packets happen to exit the system over an interface that is
protected by LFA/rLFA, when that interface fails, they should be transparently
sent
Hi Muthu,
The primary reason for my question on encapsulations is because RFC 4379 has
the foll. as one of the reasons for using the destination address in 127/8
range for IPv4 (0:0:0:0:0::7F00/104 range for IPv6) for diagnostic packets
sent over MPLS LSP:
1. Although the LSP in question
