Hi Greg, authors,
Greg, is your point is that instead of having a pair of S-BFD sessions between
2 PEs, we can have 1 (traditional) BFD session between 2 PEs? In general I
agree that S-BFD is better suited when only 1 side needs to perform continuity
tests.
Authors, in section 3.1 3rd paragraph, last sentence, I'm not sure I fully
understand. Instead of having 2 S-BFD sessions on PE3 (as initiator) to PE1 and
PE2 (the responders), how are you merging this into 1 single session?
Also, I think the document would be clearer if the terms initiator and
responder (as per RFC7880) are used in the document.
Regards,Reshad.
On Monday, March 14, 2022, 12:44:55 PM EDT, Greg Mirsky
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Haibo and the Authors,thank you for updating the draft. I've read the new
version and have a question about the use case presented in the document. There
are three PEs with two of them providing redundant access to a CE. It appears
that a more general case would be if both CEs use redundant connections to the
EVPN. Asume, PE4 is added and connected to CE2. In that case, it seems
reasonable that each PE is monitoring remote PEs, i.e., PE1 monitors PE3 and
PE4, PE2 - PE3 and PE4, PE3 - PE1 and PE2, and PE4 - PE1 and PE2. So, now there
are pairs of S-BFD sessions between PEs connected to CE1 and CE2 respectively.
That seems like too many sessions and that number can be reduced if one uses
BFD instead of S-BFD. Would you agree? To simplify operations, it might be
helpful to use the technique described in draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited. In the
recent discussion of the draft on the BFD WG ML, the authors noted that they
are working on extending the scope to include the multi-hop BFD.Greatly
appreciate your thoughts about the number of S-BFD sessions.
Regards,Greg
