Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-bfd-p2p-03
review-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-bfd-p2p-03-rtgdir-early-zhang-2026-07-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-bfd-p2p
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2026-07-24
Requested 2026-06-19
Requested by Yingzhen Qu
Authors Nitish Gupta , Aditya Dogra , Colin Docherty , Jeff Tantsura
I-D last updated 2026-02-27 (Latest revision 2026-02-27)
Completed reviews Opsdir Early review of -03 by Michael P
Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang
Secdir Early review of -03 by Paul Wouters
Comments
Preparation for WGLC.
Assignment Reviewer Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-bfd-p2p by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/v8OECf0GzaHt5Fez9Xu1rsEQ2GQ
Reviewed revision 03
Result Has nits
Completed 2026-07-28
review-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-bfd-p2p-03-rtgdir-early-zhang-2026-07-28-00
I have two questions/comments:

- For the backup advertisement, should we skip the IPvX addresses listed in the
advertisement? - It seems that when the critical BFD session goes down, every
backup will rush out an advertisement w/o a skew. It is even possible that a
lower priority one sends out the advertisement first - depending on which
session goes down first. With the backup advertisements, the one with the
highest priority (or with the higher address in the case of a tie) can be
pre-determined and only that one needs to send out the advertisement. Should
this approach be taken?