BFD on back-to-back connected BGP-speakers

jim deleskie deleskie at
Tue Nov 29 18:46:54 UTC 2016


  I've used this configuration in a past line when I may of had multiple L2
steps between L3 devices.  The only concern we had was around load BFD put
on _some_ endpoint routers, if was handles on the RouteProcessor vs on line


On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo at> wrote:

> Good morning, nanog,
> Is there any/sufficient benefit in adding BFD onto BGP sessions between
> directly-connected routers?  If we have intermediate L2 devices such that
> we can't reliably detect link failures BFD can help us quickly detect peers
> going away even when link remains up, but what about sessions with:
> - 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?
> --
> Hugo Slabbert       | email, xmpp/jabber: hugo at
> pgp key: B178313E   | also on Signal

More information about the NANOG mailing list