Hi Reshad, thank you for the question. Here's my reasoning: - only Required Min Echo RX Interval is present in RFC 5880 and it allows to indicate not only the smallest interval between consecutive BFD Echo packets but whether system supports BFD Echo function at all; - since BFD Echo may be transmitted only when the session state is Up, operator is fully equipped to learn the value of Required Min Echo RX Interval of its BFD peer and to set Echo transmit interval accordingly; - requesting BFD Echo, in my opinion, is no different from requesting IP ping or LSP ping.
Hence my conclusion - transmit interval for BFD Echo is more suitable in RPC then as configuration parameter. Regards, Greg On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Can you please explain why you believe this should go in RPC? > > Regards, > Reshad. > > From: Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> > Date: Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:48 PM > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Correcting BFD Echo model > Resent-From: <[email protected]> > Resent-To: <[email protected]>, Reshad <[email protected]>, < > [email protected]>, <[email protected]>, < > [email protected]> > Resent-Date: Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:48 PM > > Dear All, > I've reviewed the BFD YANG model and now I'm thinking that > desired-min-echo-tx-interval > and attributing to it the behavior, i.e. when the value is 0, of Required > Min Echo RX Interval are not in the right place. I think that definition of > desired transmit interval of BFD Echo should be in corresponding RPC > definition, not in configuration part of the model. > Appreciate your comments. > > Regards, > Greg >
