On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 at 21:20, Jeff Haas via juniper-nsp <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote:
> BFD holddown is the right feature for this. > WARNING: BFD holddown is known to be problematic between Juniper and Cisco > implementations due to where each start their state machines for BFD vs. BGP. > > It was a partial motivation for BGP BFD strict: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode > > BGP BFD strict was added in 23.2R1. But why is this desirable? Why do I want to prioritise stability always, instead of prioritising convergence on well-behaved interfaces and stability on poorly behaved interfaces? If I can pick just one, I'll prioritise convergence every time for both. That is, if I cannot have exponential back-off, I won't kill convergence 'just in case', because it's not me who will feel the pain of my decisions, it's my customers. Netengs and particularly infosec people quite often are unnecessarily conservative in their policies, because they don't have skin in the game, they feel the upside, but not the downside. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
