nanog mailing list archives
Re: Interesting BFD discussion on reddit
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:36:06 +0200
On (2015-02-16 20:33 -0500), Rob Seastrom wrote: Hey,
One might profitably ask why BFD wasn't designed to take advantage of high-TTL-shadowing, a la draft-gill-btsh.
RFC5881, section 5 in page 4 --- If BFD authentication is not in use on a session, all BFD Control packets for the session MUST be sent with a Time to Live (TTL) or Hop Limit value of 255. All received BFD Control packets that are demultiplexed to the session MUST be discarded if the received TTL or Hop Limit is not equal to 255. A discussion of this mechanism can be found in [GTSM]. --- -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- Interesting BFD discussion on reddit Dave Waters (Feb 15)
- Re: Interesting BFD discussion on reddit Saku Ytti (Feb 15)
- Re: Interesting BFD discussion on reddit Glen Kent (Feb 15)
- Re: Interesting BFD discussion on reddit Saku Ytti (Feb 16)
- Re: Interesting BFD discussion on reddit Eygene Ryabinkin (Feb 16)
- Re: Interesting BFD discussion on reddit Glen Kent (Feb 16)
- Re: Interesting BFD discussion on reddit Saku Ytti (Feb 16)
- Re: Interesting BFD discussion on reddit Sudeep Khuraijam (Feb 20)
- Re: Interesting BFD discussion on reddit Glen Kent (Feb 15)
- Re: Interesting BFD discussion on reddit Saku Ytti (Feb 15)
- Re: Interesting BFD discussion on reddit Saku Ytti (Feb 16)
- Re: Interesting BFD discussion on reddit Dave Waters (Feb 17)
- Re: Interesting BFD discussion on reddit Rob Seastrom (Feb 16)
- Re: Interesting BFD discussion on reddit Hugo Slabbert (Feb 17)