Hi Carlos,
My answers to your two questions are as follow:
In section 6.6 of RFC5880, just after the text you quoted, it says "One
possible mechanism is the receipt of traffic from the remote system; another is
the use of the Echo function." So I'm not sure what's your real concern.
In
Hi, Greg,
Thanks for the quick response — please see inline, since I do not believe you
were answering my actual points.
On Oct 26, 2018, at 11:23 AM, Greg Mirsky
mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Carlos,
thank you for your interest in the draft and the questions. Please find my
Hi,
Inline .
On 2018-10-25, 11:38 AM, "Jeffrey Haas" wrote:
Les,
I *think* the following text is yours.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:36:52AM +, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> [Les:] So, this has some implications:
>
> We have both a transmit
(* sorry, resend ING with updated subject *)
Hi Les,
> [Les:] I have read this draft - not sure how relevant it is.
>
> Naiming had suggested that MTU sized packets need not be sent all the time
> but only occasionally -
> and that a failure might not be used to take the BFD session down -
Hi Acee,
>> Commenting specifically on the OSPF case, when you have such misconfigured
>> MTUs, this manifests as weird protocol hiccups.B You don't so much detect
>> that there's an MTU issue - you just see OSPF failing to make progress.
>
> However, when implementations start supporting
Hi Carlos,
thank you for your support and the comment about the reference to BFD for
Multipoint Networks draft. You have a point, and I agree that the sentence
and thus the reference can be removed altogether. I'll check with other
authors and will update the group accordingly.
Regards,
Greg
On
Hi Carlos,
thank you for your interest in the draft and the questions. Please find my
answers in-line tagged GIM>>.
Regards,
Greg
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 9:04 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
cpign...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Xiao,
>
> Scanning through the draft, two questions:
>
> 1. What is the
