Thanks for the reminder, Reshad. I support publication of this document, short and useful.
I only have one comment in regards to: It is also worthy of note that even if an implementation can function with larger transport PDUs, that additional packet size may have impact on BFD scaling. Such systems may support a lower transmission interval (bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval) when operating in large packet mode. This interval may depend on the size of the transport PDU. Instead of (or in addition to) a lower transmission interval, why not add flexibility to not *have* to send large packets every packet, and instead send every n paks or so? Thanks! Carlos. On Sep 9, 2019, at 10:55 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: BFD WG, reminder that WGLC is ongoing for this document. Regards, Reshad. From: Rtg-bfd <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 12:34 PM To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets BFD WG, As was mentioned at IETF105, this document is stable and there was an interop test done between FRR and Junos VMX. Please provide comments/feedback on the document. The deadline for last call is September 13th. Regards, Reshad & Jeff.
