I'm a little puzzled here. BFD needs two BFD-speaking routers, right? It's not enough that one of them can speak BFD, is it? And if a router speaks BFD it probably also speaks some kind of routing protocol semi-fluently. Why not use that option instead?
I can see that BFD is a _lot_ more light weight compared to any routing protocol, but it's local to the specific router unless you redistribute your static route. And BFD does little more than your link up/down mechanics, so if you have a direct connection and UDLD it's unecessary. (Doesn't help for e.g. SONET of course.) I'm just thinking it'd be a scarcely used feature. Or am I completely off track here? :-) Regards, Peter On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 21:56 +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 03:12:07PM -0500, Phil Bedard wrote: > > Yeah I was aware of that, but was looking for a lighter weight solution. > > And "more automatic". > > (IOS XR has this? Way cool!) > > gert > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
