Robert – The numbers are network-wide – not per node. And no one has mentioned config as an issue in this thread – though no doubt some operators might have concerns in that area.
Les From: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 4:30 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>; Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>; Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net>; Hannes Gredler <han...@gredler.at>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE Hi Les, [LES:] Even a modest sized N = 100 (which is certainly not a high number) leads to 10000 BFD sessions. N= 500 => 250,000 sessions. Etc. Are you doing N^2 ? Why ? All you need to keep in mind is number of those sessions per PE so in worst case (N-1) - here 99 and 499. And as we already established, configuration is optional as you can use auto config. Thx, R. [LES:] Nodes which can support thousands of BFD sessions are likely already using many BFD sessions for other purposes. In particular, fast detection of local failures is always going to be a priority – so if a node has thousands of neighbors – it will likely have thousands of single hop BFD sessions. Not to mention the plethora of other OAM uses cases being defined. And the network-wide traffic impact as these new BFD sessions are largely multi-hop. Are you really arguing that the introduction of many thousands of BFD sessions is something we should not be concerned about? Les Les
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
