Add bfd settings to Interface resource
#139
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
hardikdr
added
the
area/metal-automation
felix-kaestner
force-pushed
the
nx/bgw
branch
from
86d05e5 to
2b5f774
Compare
felix-kaestner
force-pushed
the
nx/bgw
branch
2 times, most recently
from
184f939 to
b35c016
Compare
felix-kaestner
force-pushed
the
nx/bgw
branch
from
b35c016 to
e484e01
Compare
felix-kaestner
force-pushed
the
bfd
branch
3 times, most recently
from
9f028d8 to
c9fa40e
Compare
felix-kaestner
force-pushed
the
nx/bgw
branch
from
e484e01 to
c4225a1
Compare
felix-kaestner
force-pushed
the
nx/bgw
branch
from
c4225a1 to
053ec42
Compare
See also: https://github.com/openconfig/public/blob/master/release/models/bfd/openconfig-bfd.yang Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Instead the enablement of bfd for the link is implicitly inferred from the `.spec.bfd.enabled` on the referenced `Interface`.
This patch adds support for automatically disabling icmp redirects on IPv4 links that are running BFD sessions, equivalent to the configuration of: ``` interface Ethernet1/1 no ip redirects ```
This patch automatically infers the configuration for bfd on an ospf link according to the following config based on the `.spec.bfd.enabled` field in the `Interface` resource. ``` interface Ethernet1/1 ip ospf bfd ```
felix-kaestner
force-pushed
the
nx/bgw
branch
from
053ec42 to
09abac5
Compare
nikatza
approved these changes
Dec 30, 2025
| // BFD defines the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection configuration for the interface. | ||
| // BFD is only applicable for Layer 3 interfaces (Physical, Loopback, RoutedVLAN). | ||
| // +optional | ||
| BFD *BFD `json:"bfd,omitempty"` |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was checkingOpenConfig's and they do it differently. We could follow their approach, which would have the advantage of reducing the number of gNMI calls (on cisco nxos, as far as we know). However, this definition here seems more natural to me. Do you have any idea why they decided that structure instead? (just curious)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.