On Thursday, October 13, 2011 11:12:45 AM Ryan Wilkins wrote: > My question is why would you not consider it?
In all fairness, we started using BFD when it dropped about 4 years ago or more. Then, the majority of our routers were 7200's, and we didn't want to overload the CPU with BFD hellos to infrastructure that wasn't ours. Same reason we generally disable IETF Graceful Restart toward eBGP sessions, especially since it's moot - but I digress. Perhaps, for us, the reason is still the same - reducing overhead as much as possible on edge boxes that generally tend to be quite busy. More so if it's a software box. I suppose if we move to platforms that implement BFD in hardware (I know Juniper have a so-called Distributed PPM [Periodic Packet Management] protocol that allows BFD, CFM, LFM and LACP, RSTP, MSTP, e.t.c., to run in hardware on their M7i, M10i, M120, M320, MX, T and TX Matrix routers and EX switches), then we may be open to reconsidering its use outside of our core infrastructure. We do have tons of Juniper kit in the network, running in the edge where PPM is enabled by default in hardware, but haven't had customers asking for BFD for eBGP. I know the ASR9000 doesn't implement BFD in hardware today, but uncertain about other platforms in Cisco's stable, particularly the newer ones. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
