Hello Santosh, Alvaro et al., >> [SPK] This is implementation specific right? Do we need this to be >> captured in document?
we could make it "just a TLV" which the IGP/L2TP transports to other S-BFD modules. The transport mechanism then would not need to know the inner structure, e.g. [type, discriminator], to function correctly. But for S-BFD modules to interoperate we would need to define the inner structure of the "V" in the TLV. Implementation specific could be if you want to have awareness of the inner structure in the IGP/L2TP code already, e.g. when the IGP wants to make use of S-BFD information it transports, for it's own purpose (shortcutting some API calls). We have to ask the L2TP, OSPF, IS-IS authors if they would be fine with this change :-) Regards, Marc On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:00:16 +0000, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > On 12/18/15, 4:30 AM, "Santosh P K" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Santosh: > > Hi! > >>> There is another aspect: the protocols (OSPF, IS-IS, L2TP) plan to >>> transport >>> a list of discriminators. Okay ... but how is the receiver S-BFD module >>> making sense out of this list? Would have expected something like (type, >>> discriminator). The protocols don't need to understand the details, only >>> that >>> the API transports one or more of these tuples in/out of the protocol >>> module. >>> S-BFD would know/define what a particular type means. >>> Just asking before we send OSPF, IS-IS, L2TP into the wrong direction :-) >> >> [SPK] This is implementation specific right? Do we need this to be >> captured in document? > > What is implementation specific? > > Right now the IGPs (generalizing: ISIS, OSPF, L2TP, etc.) are developing > drafts to only carry the discriminators. If, as Mark suggests, the IGPs > also transport something like "type", then S-BFD would know what each > discriminator is for. > > Several questions: Is this (transporting [type, discriminator]) what is > expected from the IGPs? If so, I assume the S-BFD module on the nodes > assigns those values for transportation, right? How does a receiver know > what a particular type means? > > Maybe the expectation from S-BFD is different...?? That is something that > needs to be clarified so the IGP work can proceed. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. >
