RFC 7882: Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Use Cases
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document describes various use cases for Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) and provides requirements such that protocol mechanisms allow for simplified detection of forwarding failures. These use cases support S-BFD, which is a simplified mechanism for using BFD with a large proportion of negotiation aspects eliminated, accelerating the establishment of a BFD session. The benefits of S-BFD include quick provisioning, as well as improved control and flexibility for network nodes initiating path monitoring.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC7882
- Published
- July 2016
- Authors
- S. Aldrin; C. Pignataro; G. Mirsky; N. Kumar
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 15
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 7881Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) for IPv4, IPv6, and MPLSCurrent
July 2016
- RFC 7884OSPF Extensions to Advertise Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Target DiscriminatorsCurrent
July 2016
- RFC 7880Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD)Current
July 2016
- RFC 7726Clarifying Procedures for Establishing BFD Sessions for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)Current
January 2016
- RFC 8287Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data PlanesUpdated
December 2017
- RFC 7419Common Interval Support in Bidirectional Forwarding DetectionCurrent
December 2014
- RFC 8355Resiliency Use Cases in Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) NetworksCurrent
March 2018
- RFC 7331Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Management Information BaseCurrent
August 2014
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?