Hi Ketan, I would like to point out that the draft discusses the BFD "dampening" or > "hold-down" mechanism in Sec 5. We are aware of BFD implementations that > include such mechanisms in a protocol-agnostic manner. >
BFD dampening or hold-time are completely orthogonal to my point. Both have nothing to do with it. Those timers only fire when BFD goes down. In my example BFD does not go down. But we want to bring up the client adj. only after X ms/sec/min etc ...of normal BFD operation if no failure is detected during that timer. This draft indicates that OSPF adjacency will "advance" in the neighbor FSM > only after BFD reports UP. > And that is exactly too soon. In fact if you do that today without waiting some time (if you retire the current OSPF timer) you will not help at all in the case you are trying to address. Reason being that perhaps 200 ms after BFD UP it will go down, but OSPF adj. will get already established. It is really pretty simple. Thx, Robert. PS. And yes I think ISIS should also get fixed in that respect. >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
