[c-nsp] RSVP-TE was (no subject)

[emmanuel manoni]

Thanks Mark

I will try to enable BFD for rsvp and monitor if the convergence time will
improve.

Regards,
Emmanuel

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 00:43 Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:

>
>
> On 12/Apr/20 21:58, Hari Sapkota wrote:
> > Hi Emmanuel,
> >
> > The RSVP should be informed in the case of link failure since BFD runs on
> > the line card and detects failure in quicker way. In order to terminate
> > RSVP signaling without having to wait for the hold timer, the BFD should
> be
> > bound to the RSVP so that the headend router can signal the use of backup
> > tunnel. I hope you have already provisioned the backup tunnel for the
> > temporary use by the PLR till the recalculation of new RSVP path is
> > completed.
>
> What we've generally done is make sure the lowest level protocol reacts
> as quickly as possible. This way, it's (quick) reaction would inform
> lateral or upper-layer protocols to react accordingly.
>
> So we tune IS-IS to react quickly, and enable BFD just for it.
>
> We haven't found the need to enable BFD for BGP, LDP, and other
> upper-layer protocols that rely on the IGP to function.
>
> But stuff like this is not a one-size-fits-all.
>
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>