Hello Authors,
Below are the comments on the draft.
"[Ed.Note]: Use of O bit is still being discussed in the NVO3 WG, so
the value is undetermined."
[SPK] In some of the implementation that are using BFD over GENEVE
have already started using O bit to indicate this is OAM packet and
these
On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 11:11:13PM -, Albert Fu (BLOOMBERG/ 120 PARK) wrote:
> There are well known cases, including those you mentioned, where BFD has
> limitations in deterministically detecting data plane issue, and not
> specific with the BFD Large Packet Draft. I am a novice to the IETF
>
Les,
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 09:14:08PM +, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> > The primary reason this is a "may" in the non-RFC 2119 sense is that our
> > experience also suggests that when the scaling impacts are primarily pps
> > rather than bps that this feature will likely have no major im
Hi Jeff,
> That said, Robert, there's room for you to work on that if you want to
kick
> off a draft on the topic.
Thx for the hint, but I do not think this extension should be done in BFD
for three reasons:
Reason 1 -
BFD works well to quickly detect failures. Loading on it more stuff
compromi
Jeff -
For some reason this is proving to be harder than I think it should be.
I keep thinking I am being transparent - yet you keep reading "ulterior
motives" into what I say.
There are no ulterior motives.
Let me try again...inline...
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeffrey Haas
> Sent
