[192857] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BFD on back-to-back connected BGP-speakers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Saku Ytti)
Tue Nov 29 14:57:32 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20161129182341.GB16300@bamboo.slabnet.com>
From: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 21:57:28 +0200
To: Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 29 November 2016 at 20:23, Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com> wrote:
Hey,
> - eBGP with peering to interface addresses (not loopback)
> - no multi-hop
> - direct back-to-back connections (no intermediate devices except patch
> panels)
>
> Possible failure scenarios where I could see this helping would be fat
> fingering (filters implemented on one or the other side drops traffic from
> the peer) or e.g. something catastrophic that causes the control plane to go
> away without any last gasp to the peer.
>
> Or is adding BFD into the mix in this type of setup getting into increasing
> effort/complexity (an additional protocol) for dimishing returns?
If you have HW liveliness detection and fast-failover, I think BFD
probably will just reduce availability due its failures being more
probable than the edge cases in your setup.
I personally would not run BFD here.
--
++ytti
