Thanks Albert..this is a useful piece of information. Regards, Muthu
On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 6:41 PM Albert Fu (BLOOMBERG/ 120 PARK) < af...@bloomberg.net> wrote: > Hi Muthu, > > We don't use virtual-links nor unnumbered links in our network. > > I checked the Junos and XR codes on our lab routers. I found that both do > not support BFD over virtual-link. I believe virtual-link is not common, > that might explain the lack of feature support. > > I did test OSPF BFD Strict mode for unnumbered link between Junos and XR. > It work as per this draft, in that BFD must be operational before OSPF is > allowed to come up. (* btw, you need to configure the hidden knob > "backward-compatible-unnumbered-mask" on Junos router in order to interop > OSPF unnumbered link with Cisco *). > > Thanks > Albert > > From: ketant.i...@gmail.com At: 02/08/22 09:44:32 UTC-5:00 > To: Albert Fu (BLOOMBERG/ 120 PARK ) <af...@bloomberg.net>, > muthu.a...@gmail.com > Cc: acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, > draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-m...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Strict-Mode for BFD" > - draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-04 > > Hi Muthu, > > I don't have the data for BFD strict-mode interop over virtual links. > However, p2p unnumbered is commonly deployed and I'll let my co-author > clarify on interop. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 10:52 PM Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal < > muthu.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Ketan, >> >> Sure, looking forward to the clarification in the draft on multi-hop BFD.. >> >> Just curious, are there interoperable implementations for OSPF multi-hop >> BFD strict mode for virtual links or p2p unnumbered interfaces? >> >> Regards, >> Muthu >> >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 5:36 PM Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Muthu, >>> >>> When we say a "link" here, it is in the context of the OSPF interface >>> and neighbor FSM. My understanding is that this term includes virtual links >>> as well. As such, we can add some text in the introduction section to >>> clarify the same and also put a reference to RFC5883 for BFD multi-hop use >>> for VLINKs. >>> >>> I hope that works for you. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ketan >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 11:05 AM Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal < >>> muthu.a...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ketan, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your response.. >>>> >>>> The draft says: >>>> <snip> >>>> This document defines the B-bit in the LLS Type 1 Extended Options >>>> and Flags field. This bit is defined for the LLS block included in >>>> Hello and Database Description (DD) packets and >>>> *indicates that BFD is enabled on the link* and that the router >>>> requests strict-mode for BFD. >>>> </smip> >>>> >>>> You don't enable multi-hop BFD on a link, instead you enable it b/w two >>>> (multi-hop) routers, right? >>>> >>>> How about replacing it with: >>>> indicates that (1) single-hop BFD [RFC5881] is enabled on the link in >>>> case of point-to-point (numbered) and LAN interfaces, and (2) multi-hop BFD >>>> [RFC5883] is enabled between the neighbors in case of virtual links and >>>> point-to-point unnumbered interfaces. >>>> >>>> Also, add a note at the beginning of the draft that BFD refers to both >>>> single-hop and multi-hop BFD when not explicitly specified.. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Muthu >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:40 PM Ketan Talaulikar < >>>> ketant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Muthu, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your review and your support. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding your question, I would like to clarify that this document >>>>> doesn't specify BFD operations with OSPF. That was done by RFC5882. Indeed >>>>> for virtual links, there would need to be a BFD multi-hop session and the >>>>> same would apply to p-t-p unnumbered. >>>>> >>>>> However, I am not sure what specific applicability or operations need >>>>> to be called out for Strict Mode of operations for those links. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Ketan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 12:52 PM Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal < >>>>> muthu.a...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I support the draft. A quick question: >>>>>> Should it describe the applicability of the mechanism over OSPF >>>>>> virtual links and unnumbered interfaces? With virtual links, one would >>>>>> have >>>>>> to establish a multi-hop BFD session, so it is slightly different from a >>>>>> BFD operational standpoint. For e.g, capability to support single-hop BFD >>>>>> may not translate to the capability to support multi-hop BFD.. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Muthu >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:38 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee= >>>>>> 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> LSR WG, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This begins a two week last call for the subject draft. Please >>>>>>> indicate your support or objection on this list prior to 12:00 AM UTC on >>>>>>> February 11th, 20222. Also, review comments are certainly welcome. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Acee >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Lsr mailing list >>>>>>> Lsr@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >>>>>>> >>>>>> >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
