Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-shen-bfd-intf-p2p-nbr-00.txt

From: "Nitin Bahadur" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 15:41:51 -0700

> > Also, with the draft you are tying in the concept of a link failure
to a
> > bfd session failure...which might not necessarily be true. BFD
sessions
> > might fail due to firewall filters, IP packet handling errors. You
would
> > need more tools to tell the customer/operator that the link is
*actually
> > not down* and it's BFD that has marked the link as down.
> 
> to be honest, generate an meaningful error message saying 'intf-p2p
bfd
> brought down intf' will probably do for most of the customers.

I would be happy if you can note in the draft that the bfd session
failure does not necessarily mean that the physical link/connectivity is
down and bfd should not be used in place of link-layer OAM mechanisms.

Comments by Dave Katz & Tom Nadeau seem to have addressed all other
issues.

Thanks
Nitin

---

From: Naiming Shen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 01:28:37 -0700

> down and bfd should not be used in place of link-layer OAM mechanisms.

For the first one, I can add that it does not mean the physical link  
has to
be down; the second one, this draft does not claim to replace the OAM
functionality. this draft is only trying to be the BFD with a simple  
scheme.

thanks.
- Naiming