Reshad, > On Nov 2, 2015, at 9:29 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Santosh, > > Even for single-hop we had discussions about implementations which support > the option of having multiple BFD single-hop sessions on 1 interface between > 2 endpoints. That was an argument for having the BFD config in routing > applications. This is what was discussed today in the WG. And I think Greg’s > point is that we don’t have to support this in the base model, but > implementations are have vendor specific model which supports this behavior. Are there already vendor specific models/implementations in the single hop case? OR did you mean, there could be vendor specific extensions?
-sam > > Regards, > Reshad. > > > From: Rtg-bfd <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> on > behalf of Santosh P K <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 1:25 AM > To: Gregory Mirsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: RE: Multiple BFD sessions between the same pair of end-points > > This is form RFC 5881 section 3. > > In this application, there will be only a single BFD session between > two systems over a given interface (logical or physical) for a > particular protocol. The BFD session must be bound to this > interface. > > Which says for singlehop you will have only single BFD session for an > interface. The case where we are struggling in Yang is for multihop BFD > session. > > Thanks > Santosh P K > > > From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky > Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 7:57 AM > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Multiple BFD sessions between the same pair of end-points > > Dear All, > I think that this paragraph from Section 2 of RFC 5881 prohibits multiple > single-hop BFD sessions between the same pair of end points: > Each BFD session between a pair of systems MUST traverse a separate > network-layer path in both directions. This is necessary for > demultiplexing to work properly, and also because (by definition) > multiple sessions would otherwise be protecting the same path. > > Regards, > Greg
