Hi, My take too is that the RFC is pretty clear that Echo reply from egress LSR is not mandatory.
Regards, Reshad. On 2017-07-16, 4:29 PM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Mach Chen" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >Hi Ashesh, > >Thanks for your prompt response, we're on the same page! > >Best regards, >Mach > >> -----邮件原件----- >> 发件人: Ashesh Mishra [mailto:[email protected]] >> 发送时间: 2017年7月16日 22:26 >> 收件人: Mach Chen >> 抄送: [email protected] >> 主题: Re: A question about RFC5884 >> >> That's how I read it ... assuming that proper handling of the LSR echo >>includes >> gracefully dropping it on rx. >> >> Ashesh >> >> On Jul 16, 2017, at 3:58 PM, Mach Chen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi BFDers, >> >> We met a multi-vendor interoperate issue recently, it's about whether >>an Echo >> reply is necessary. >> >> In Section 6 of RFC5884, 2nd paragraph >> >> "... The egress LSR MAY respond with an LSP Ping Echo >> reply message that carries the local discriminator assigned by it for >> the BFD session." >> >> > From the above text, my understanding is that an Echo reply is >>optional, the >> egress LSR can freely to return or not return an Echo reply, and the >>Ingress LSR >> should not expect there MUST be an Echo reply, but if there is one, it >>should >> handle it properly. >> >> Is my understanding correct? >> >> Thanks, >> Mach >
