Hi, On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 11:14:06PM +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote: > 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?
Because you don't want to speak any routing protocol to customers.
Consider things like customers being connected to your routers by a
"LAN bridge" from some city carrier. Ethernet on both ends, $funny things
in the middle of it. Depending on the way these boxes work, both sides
might have a link at all times, no matter whether the link actually works
or not.
Given that it's a customer connection, you do not want to do IGP routing
that way, and if it's a low-budget customer, you certainly do not want to
setup BGP routing. So you need some other way to detect "line is down,
move to backup link".
BFD-with-statics would very nicely fill that niche.
(And yes - we used have a lot of those links...)
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpUvWAON0Na1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
