Hi Jeff,
thank you for the continued technical discussion. I've added my notes below
in-line under the GIM>> tag.
Regards,
Greg
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 2:10 PM Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> Greg, Xiao Min,
>
> Picking one small section of the replies as the basis of my own reply:
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 20
Greg,
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:21:42AM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 2:10 PM Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > The desired behavior is "obvious". If you support BFD Echo, you'd like to
> > turn on that code to the remote system and do so without letting Echo be
> > initiated using
Hi Jeff,
I agree that S-BFD may provide a more suitable architectural framework for
the Unaffiliated Echo (would that then be referred to as Unaffiliated S-BFD
Echo?). Though, reading the S-BFD Echo Function section in RFC 7880, I find
that the specification allows using standalone S-BFD Echo witho
Greg, Jeff,
It looks that you converge on comparison between S-BFD Echo and Unaffiliated
Echo.
What I want to point out is, allowing using standalone BFD/S-BFD Echo without
periodically transmitted BFD/S-BFD Control packets, doesn't mean it's
Unaffiliated Echo.
In RFC 5880 section 3.2 the 4th p
