I'm speaking with our account rep today about the ME6524, and I'll bring this up. If anyone with Cisco Process Clue(tm) could share with me the direction I should point her, please let me know off-list.
-- Stephen Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote: >>> I did try with an ethernet link between PE and CE, and bfd config looks >>> good. >> Unless you're Ethernet links are 1Q trunks like what you'd have between >> a site with a pair of redundant routers doing both L3 and access layer >> connections (FHRPs). SRC removed BFD on SVI support, as did SXH on the >> ME6524s. >> >> Yes, I'm beating a dead horse but it aggravates me nonetheless. I need >> to upgrade to SRC but I am going to lose BFD support as soon as I do, >> pushing my recovery times up into seconds; far from the milliseconds >> Cisco sold us on when they blessed this design. > > And I'm still waiting for the reason why this has been removed from > the code, or why it's an issue to support BFD with SVI. > > And I'll keep beating both dead horses, at least till Cisco or Juniper > (EX series) comes up with a solution. > > > Rubens > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/