Xiao Min,
> On Apr 7, 2023, at 3:15 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> On Apr 6, 2023, at 3:35 AM, <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> One of the considerations may be whether a IPv6 link local address is >> preferable to a global address. >> >> The only consideration for the draft as it is written is that the address >> used as the destination may be looped back by the unaffiliated device. Link >> local helps address the security considerations that impact this feature, >> and it might be worth noting that when link local can be used for the use >> case that it assists in this point. > [XM]>>> I checked this with the implementer of this feature, and I'm told > setting the DA to a IPv6 link local address doesn't work, because the link > local address can't be looped back by the neighboring device. > > That's an interesting deficiency. I will ask Juniper BFD developers if there's any similar consideration for our current implementation. > [XM]>>> I propose the text change as below. > > OLD > > Device A would send BFD Unaffiliated Echo packets with IP destination > address destined for itself, such as the IP address of interface 1 of > device A. > NEW > > Device A would send BFD Unaffiliated Echo packets with IP destination > address destined for itself, such as the IP address of interface 1 of > device A. The IP source address of the BFD Unaffiliated Echo packets > could be identical to the IP destination address or other address > provisioned > on device A. > > "could" isn't one of our RFC 2119 normative terms. Do you believe "SHOULD" is more appropriate? -- Jeff
