Resending with correct BFD WG address. > On May 18, 2017, at 2:33 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Agree with Acee’s assessment. After much debate, we decided that we should > leave BFD parameter configuration in the BFD model itself, and have any IGP > protocol reference the BFD instance in BFD itself. This makes sense specially > if multiple protocols fate-share the BFD session. > > Cheers. > >> On May 18, 2017, at 12:27 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com >> <mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Jeff, >> >> At the OSPF WG Meeting in Chicago, you suggested that we may want to provide >> configuration of BFD parameters within the OSPF model (ietf-ospf.yang). We >> originally did have this configuration. However, after much discussion and >> coordination with the BFD YANG design team, we agreed to leave the BFD >> session parameters in BFD and only enable BFD within the OSPF and IS-IS >> models. >> >> We did discuss the fact that vendors (notably Cisco IOS-XR and Juniper >> JUNOS) do allow configuration within the IGPs. However, the consensus was to >> leave the BFD configuration in the BFD model. The heuristics to determine >> what parameters to use when the same BFD endpoint was configured with >> different parameters in different protocols were proprietary and somewhat of >> a hack. >> >> I may have not remembered all the details so I’d encourage others to chime >> in. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee > > Mahesh Jethanandani > mjethanand...@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com> > > >
Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
