Hi Jeff, I'll be glad to put couple slides to help jumstart the discussion on BFD Echo.
Regards, Greg On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > [continuing the top-posting heresy to preserve context] > > Greg, > > Our schedule is relatively open right now, and this matter is esoteric > enough that it probably warrants a slide for the majority of the Working > Group to follow this issue. Would you prepare a slide or two to use as a > discussion point? > > I'll also use this opportunity to point out that in S-BFD scenarios, we > have > somewhat similar ambiguities since it's an on-demand service. > > -- Jeff > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 07:31:01AM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Hi Reshad, > > thank you for providing the context to BFD Echo TX. Indeed, I'm familiar > > with implementations that use BFD Echo as Echo request/reply and thus Tx > > would be in RPC, not in configuration. I think that it would be good to > > discuss this in Chicago unless we hear comments from others on the list. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > draft-zheng-mpls-ls-ping-yang-cfg defines transmit interval in RPC > > > because all ping operations are done via RPC. I do not consider BFD > echo > > > to be “on demand” like LSP Ping (caveat: this is possibly due to the > BFD > > > configuration/implementation I am most familiar with). > >
