<Cross-posting to BFD> Hi Andrew, authors, I had concern that this document may violate S-BFD spec but upon checking RFC7880 section 7.2.1, it seems that there is no issue. BTW I think RFC7881 should also be in the reference list. I had my colleague Claude do a quick check and Claude believes there's an issue. I am too tired to verify this right now, but I am sending it just in case I forget. Regards,Reshad.
Section 7.3.2 recommends that each egress SID list of each Junction Segment run "its own S-BFD session to the next downstream node." In the Appendix A example, Junction Segment C has SID List 2 [Adj-SID-CF, BSID-F]. The implied S-BFD session would be initiated from C and is supposed to verify reachability to F. But that's not what happens. When an S-BFD packet (per RFC 7881 / RFC 9612) is forwarded along [Adj-SID-CF, BSID-F]: - C pushes the full label stack and forwards to F via the adjacency SID. - F receives the packet with BSID-F on top. F processes BSID-F as a Binding SID — it swaps BSID-F for its own Junction Segment SID list [Adj-SID-FH] and forwards to H. - The S-BFD packet terminates at H (the DAG egress), not at F.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
