Subject: Re: Discovering IP address to use for uBFD sessions

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:57:59 -0400

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 07:49:11PM +0000, Nobo Akiya (nobo) wrote:
> [hat on]
> 
> I had a discussion with Jeff on this topic.
> 
> We have concluded that there isn???t sufficient WG interest to pursue adoption of dynamic address discovery at this time. However note, such work, if interest appears, is in scope for the existing charter.

To bump this thread, the seamless BFD proposal may cover this use case.  

With regard to only BFD on LAG, it was the consensus of the initial
developers and authors that configuration was sufficient for the time being
and satisfied the original customer use case.  But as noted elsewhere,
people keep asking about this. :-)

-- Jeff

---

From: Marc Binderberger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:20:57 +0200

Hello,

I think we can play on time regarding this topic. If there are specific 
requests they may drive the discussion again. Also over time network 
designs change. Who knows, in a few years the out-of-band 
synchronization between two network nodes may be a side effect of SDN 
and the "discovery" comes for free ;-)

Not sure how seamless BFD is fitting into scenarios with two-sided BFD 
like uBFD sessions. Each technology has it's area where it is the right 
fit; for seamless I see everything that is uni-directional and/or 
virtual - LSPs, tunnels, etc., as an excellent fit and seamless BFD as 
probably superior over our existing two-sided BFD. As long as something 
is fixed - either physical like a wire or fixed configured - I would 
see the existing BFD as the best fit.

Anyway, good discussions are always fine with me :-)

Regards, Marc

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:57:59 -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>> We have concluded that there isn???t sufficient WG interest to 
>> pursue adoption of dynamic address discovery at this time. However 
>> note, such work, if interest appears, is in scope for the existing 
>> charter.
>