Thanks for the quick clarification, Reshad.
-sam
> On Nov 2, 2015, at 11:00 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Sam,
>
> Typo in my email indeed. What I meant is that there could be vendor specific
> extensions if needed.
>
> Also looks like there was confusion in the design team (seemingly caused by
> my misinterpretation of what was said), there is no known implementation
> which supports multiple BFD single-hop sessions for the same pair of
> endpoints (right Santosh?). For MH it’s a different story because of
> multiple-paths.
>
> The DT will get together to clarify and apologies for the confusion.
>
> Regards,
> Reshad.
>
> From: Sam Aldrin <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 2:48 AM
> To: Reshad <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Cc: Santosh P K <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
> 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
>
> Reshad,
>
>> On Nov 2, 2015, at 9:29 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[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
>
