Hi Greg and all,
I just have quick review on the drafts. If my understanding is correct, the idea is to use multicast destination address other than unicast address when sending BFD packets over LAG links. And actually this idea has been proposed in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-bfd-interface-00 (the predecessor of RFC 7130). And at that time, the co-authors of RFC 7130 did discuss the idea of using multicast destination address, but for some reason I forget now(I may need to reiterate the discussions on the archive), the idea was abandoned, although I still think multicast destination address is a smart idea. Best regards, Mach ________________________________ From: Rtg-bfd [[email protected]] on behalf of Gregory Mirsky [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 6:16 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Alia Atlas ([email protected]) Subject: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces Dear All, two new drafts, related to RFC 7130, were published before the meeting: * BFD on MC-LAG interfaces in IP network<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-ip-00> * BFD on MC-LAG interfaces in IP/MPLS network<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-mpls-00> Greatly appreciate your reviews, comments, questions and suggestions. Regards, Greg
