[c-nsp] Faster BGP Failover

[Mark Tinka]

On Thursday, October 13, 2011 11:12:45 AM Ryan Wilkins 
wrote:

> My question is why would you not consider it?

In all fairness, we started using BFD when it dropped about 
4 years ago or more. Then, the majority of our routers were 
7200's, and we didn't want to overload the CPU with BFD 
hellos to infrastructure that wasn't ours.

Same reason we generally disable IETF Graceful Restart 
toward eBGP sessions, especially since it's moot - but I 
digress.

Perhaps, for us, the reason is still the same - reducing 
overhead as much as possible on edge boxes that generally 
tend to be quite busy. More so if it's a software box.

I suppose if we move to platforms that implement BFD in 
hardware (I know Juniper have a so-called Distributed PPM 
[Periodic Packet Management] protocol that allows BFD, CFM, 
LFM and LACP, RSTP, MSTP, e.t.c., to run in hardware on 
their M7i, M10i, M120, M320, MX, T and TX Matrix routers and 
EX switches), then we may be open to reconsidering its use 
outside of our core infrastructure.

We do have tons of Juniper kit in the network, running in 
the edge where PPM is enabled by default in hardware, but 
haven't had customers asking for BFD for eBGP.

I know the ASR9000 doesn't implement BFD in hardware today, 
but uncertain about other platforms in Cisco's stable, 
particularly the newer ones.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20111013/648421da/attachment.pgp>