Acee, On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:10:43PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > I don’t really feel there is a strong requirement to support different > timers values per protocol even though several implementations allow > different protocol specific values to be configured (with varying > behaviors). > > If there were such a requirement, I would think it would be better > satisfied by extending the BFD model session key with an additional > identifier, e.g., <interface/dst-ip/instance>.
I suspect multi-instancing may be where this conversation goes. > IMO, this would be > preferable to allowing the details of BFD to permeate into all the other > protocol models. This would require configuration of the instance rather > than a boolean in the protocols. My lingering concern is whether the client protocol may have preferences about what session to use when such multi-instancing is permitted. Minimally this would require some sort of Yang reference to the specific instance. As I'm noting in the other response, do we really expect BFD Yang model users to pre-provision every single OSPF/ISIS adjacency in the config stanza? Likely, no. What I tend to expect is a template being used for a service profile. We don't currently have such a thing. > Acee -- Jeff _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
