Correcting BFD WG alias. Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 18, 2025, at 3:44 AM, Rao P, Gopinatha > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > From the below link should it be read as this RFC is specific to BFD session > monitoring tunnel endpoints ? > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan/16/#:~:text=At%20the%20same,from%20data%20packets. > > The RFC describes as to what should be the da_mac and dst_ip for these BFD > sessions and these BFD packets should never make it out of the VTEP. > Per VNI BFD session is not in the scope of this RFC and it is describing > purely a mechanism to monitor tunnel endpoint using mgmt VNI ( 0 or 1) ? > > Can we associate a action to withdraw routes if this BFD session goes down > because encap/decap is broken to peer VTEP ? Per VNI BFD session can still be > operating fine but there might be processing issues for this BFD Session with > VNI 0 for which it might have gone down so how should this BFD Down be > interpreted ? > > Thanks, > Gopi
