Hi Greg,

Thanks for sharing this information!

Best regards,

发件人: Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2017年7月17日 15:34
收件人: Mach Chen
抄送: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
主题: Re: A question about RFC5884

Hi Mach, et. al,
I recall that this question was discussed some time ago and the clarification 
came from the original authors of the BFD protocol. The Echo Reply is optional 
if there's no error to report. But if the remote LER, acting as BFD node, does 
decide to send the Echo Reply it MUST send it after is sends the first BFD 
control message.


On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Mach Chen 
<mach.c...@huawei.com<mailto:mach.c...@huawei.com>> 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?


Reply via email to