Stefan B

> Did you try explicitly defining an interface for bfd peer? `peer 172.16.1.7 interface enp0s1f0d1`. Yes, the result is the same. Extra info: I have a second BFD and BGP...

> Could you also `show ip route 172.16.1.7`, `show ip bgp 172.16.1.7`? ``` # show ip route 172.16.1.7 Routing entry for 172.16.1.0/24 Known via "connected", distance 0, metric 0, best...

> Interface names are different: enp0s1f0d3 vs. enp0s1f0d1. Is this expected? Interesting. The interface name in the log message seems wrong; it remains the same even if I configure the...

> show ip bgp neighbors 172.16.1.7 ``` # show ip bgp neighbors 172.16.1.7 BGP neighbor is 172.16.1.7, remote AS 65001, local AS 65000, external link Local Role: undefined Remote Role:...

> ``` > Status: Unknown, Last update: never > ``` > > Don't you block something? As in: firewall? Not that I am aware of. What would have to be...

> Can you check what packets do you see in tcpdump for those interfaces? If you see BFD packets or not at all. Yes, but different on both ports. ```...

Capture on enp0s1f0d1 looks like broken packets. Let me investigate our data plane. It is non-standard.

The messages were not corrupted; that must have been a problem of tcpdump. In Wireshark they looked OK. Messages were only seen in one direction because of asymmetric routing. The...

The problem has reoccurred for us as well, in a different topology, even though the interfaces are pairwise isolated on different VLANs. So this was not the solution. In our...

Here are the configs and a printout of the interfaces. When I bring down the link on RouterB, BFD goes down immediately, but BGP stays up until the holdtime expires....