[j-nsp] BFD timers for OSPF - MX80 - 10.3R2.11

[Egor Zimin]

Probably yes, however, RFC 5880 states:
---
protocol intended to detect faults in the bidirectional path between
two forwarding engines, including interfaces, data link(s), and to the
extent possible the forwarding engines themselves, with potentially
very low latency.  It operates independently of media, data protocols,
and routing protocols.
---
AND
---
 BFD is designed to detect failures in communication with a forwarding
   plane next hop.  It is intended to be implemented in some component
   of the forwarding engine of a system, in cases where the forwarding
   and control engines are separated.  This not only binds the protocol
   more to the forwarding plane, but decouples the protocol from the
   fate of the routing protocol engin
---

So, IMHO, it's not a good idea to implement BFD processing on RE's CPU.

2011/3/3 Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi>:
> On (2011-03-03 20:42 +0300), Egor Zimin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> It looks like BFD implementation in MX80 is not distributed. At this
>> moment I have a case in JTAC. The case is opened yet, however, it
>> _looks_like_ bfd is not distributed.
>
> If it would be 'distributed', wouldn't it run in 'linecard exception cpu'
> powerquiccIII 8544, which is considerably less beefy than RP 8572. And as
> there is only one 'linecard' in MX80, you'd run BFD even in slower CPU. Of
> course you wouldn't be competing with say BGP processing for the resources,
> but MX80 has more ports than MPC which need the exception CPU and the
> exception CPU is slower than in MPC as MPC has 8548.
>
> --
>  ++ytti
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>



-- 
Best regards,
Egor Zimin