Hi, I support the trill-p2mp-bfd draft.
1) Does the support of multi-point BFD aid deployments? Yes, it should be good for monitoring multi-destination connectivity. 2) Are the suggested additions to RFC7177 bootstrapping sufficient for this technology? I believe the changed part of RFC 7177 relates to one-hop sessions only. There can certainly be one-hop sessions between a head and multiple tails since, for example, the link can be a broadcast link consisting of a bridge LAN with multiple RBridges attached. I do not think the bootstrap mechanism in RFC 7177 or this modified version is sufficient for multi-hop sessions since it uses Hellos rather than LSPs. Multi-hop sessions are presumably configured by the network manager. 3) Do you feel this technology is ready for standardization? Yes. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: > We did not receive any comments on the WGLC for draft-ietf-p2mp-bfd-04.txt > (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07692.html). > Perhaps this was because I started the WG LC during Chinese new year. We > will try a second WG LC before declaring “no support for this draft” > > > > In your comments please consider, > > 1) Does the support of multi-point BFD aid deployments? > > 2) Are the suggested additions to RFC7177 bootstrapping sufficient for > this technology? > > 3) Do you feel this technology is ready for standardization? > > > > Sue Hares _______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
