On 20 May 2016 at 20:35, Duane Grant wrote:
> i agree that they could make it work, but it's a biggish change. bfd is an
> L3 protocol and below he's asking it to work at L2 and do neighbor
> discovery. the way bfd works now, the registering protocol does or provides
> the neighbor discover par
i agree that they could make it work, but it's a biggish change. bfd is an
L3 protocol and below he's asking it to work at L2 and do neighbor
discovery. the way bfd works now, the registering protocol does or
provides the neighbor discover part and tells bfd. this infrastructure
isn't available
On 20 May 2016 at 16:51, Duane Grant wrote:
> in every OS I've used, you need a registering protocol to get bfd to start,
> and if you start shutting them down (or remove peer reachability), bfd will
> admindown itself, which causes interesting consequences.
Sure, but this is implementation issue
in every OS I've used, you need a registering protocol to get bfd to start,
and if you start shutting them down (or remove peer reachability), bfd will
admindown itself, which causes interesting consequences.
if you want bfd to watch a physical link, have it monitor a static route,
but you'll also
If the interface is ethernet you may want to consider ethernet OAM options
LFM or CFM
depending on the topology.
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:45 PM, James Bensley wrote:
> On 19 May 2016 at 10:53, Mark Tinka wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 19/May/16 11:49, James Bensley wrote:
> >
> >> In Cisco land we hav
On 19 May 2016 at 10:53, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 19/May/16 11:49, James Bensley wrote:
>
>> In Cisco land we have the interface command "carrier-delay", for Junos
>> (this scenario) can the OP not use some variant of "set interfaces
>> xe-0/0/1 hold-time up 5000" ?
>
> OP says the issue is remo
On 19/May/16 12:13, Saku Ytti wrote:
> +1 why create higher abstraction layers and complicated notifications
> per protocols, when usually if we need single-hop BFD, we need it
> because we broke physical liveliness detection
+1.
It has always been assumed that routing or signaling protocols a
On 19 May 2016 at 12:38, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
> /rant/
> I don’t understand why BFD can't be configured as a standalone protocol under
> protocols stanza same way as oam lfm is.
> Something like the below.
> set protocols bfd interface ae0 pdu-interval 100
> set protocols bfd interface ae0 pdu-
On 19/May/16 11:49, James Bensley wrote:
> In Cisco land we have the interface command "carrier-delay", for Junos
> (this scenario) can the OP not use some variant of "set interfaces
> xe-0/0/1 hold-time up 5000" ?
OP says the issue is remote.
Local link to provider's switch does not fail, and
In Cisco land we have the interface command "carrier-delay", for Junos
(this scenario) can the OP not use some variant of "set interfaces
xe-0/0/1 hold-time up 5000" ?
Cheers,
James.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.n
> Clarke Morledge
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 11:54 PM
>
> I am trying to figure out the best way to configure an MX router, on an
> interface, to wait a specific time before it can re-establish an IS-IS
> adjacency,
> after an adjacency has been lost.
>
> Assume I am using BFD with reasonably
On 19/May/16 01:11, Clarke Morledge wrote:
> Thanks, Mark.
>
> I looked into that, but the situation is such that the physical link
> itself remains up. The problem is that the L2 device in between is
> dropping packets. I should have clarified that.
In that case, BFD is your friend.
You could
Thanks, Mark.
I looked into that, but the situation is such that the physical link
itself remains up. The problem is that the L2 device in between is
dropping packets. I should have clarified that.
Clarke Morledge
College of William and Mary
Information Technology - Network Engineering
Jones
On 19/May/16 00:53, Clarke Morledge wrote:
> I am trying to figure out the best way to configure an MX router, on
> an interface, to wait a specific time before it can re-establish an
> IS-IS adjacency, after an adjacency has been lost.
>
> Assume I am using BFD with reasonably short timers/mult
I am trying to figure out the best way to configure an MX router, on an
interface, to wait a specific time before it can re-establish an
IS-IS adjacency, after an adjacency has been lost.
Assume I am using BFD with reasonably short timers/multipliers to detect
when an IS-IS adjacency fails, wi
15 matches
Mail list logo
