Mahesh,
> On Oct 16, 2024, at 7:23 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Oct 16, 2024, at 12:15 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Mahesh, >> >> >>> On Oct 16, 2024, at 2:41 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> It specifies the use of the Unaffiliated BFD Echo over >>>> IPv4 and IPv6 for a single IP hop. The reason why it cannot be used >>>> for multihop paths is that the Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets would be >>>> looped back by the first hop. A full description of the updates >>>> to [RFC5880] is provided in Section 3. >>> >>> [mj] I think I saw a similar comment on one of the other threads. It is not >>> clear whether this “loopback” of packets is happening at layer 1 (physical) >>> or layer 2 (IP layer). From the sound of it, it appears it is happening at >>> layer 1, or at least where there is no lookup of IP address(es) happening. >>> If there was, the destination address could be more than one hop away. In >>> either case, clarifying how the packets are being “looped” back would help. >> >> This draft is meant to be read with RFC 5880/5881 and should avoid trying to >> redefine things. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5880#autoid-12 >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5880#autoid-12> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5881#section-4 >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5881#section-4> >> Please see the above to see if this clarifies your thinking. > > It did, and thanks for the pointer. > > Rather than add the above suggested text, and if the idea is to not redefine > things, how about adding the two links you suggest as a reference? The authors certainly could add some additional text in the Introduction section clarifying that this feature extends the existing BFD Echo functionality with those references. -- Jeff
