Static routes and BFD

[J. Kendzorra]

Hello all,

I am trying to make use of BFD for default gateway failover (in my BFD 
test bed). I used multiple variations, but according to the 
documentation (if I get it right), I should be fine using something like 
this:

,-- on client:
# empty BFD config
protocol bfd {
         #debug all;
}

# simple default route with BFD driven failover
protocol static {
     debug all;
       route 0.0.0.0/0 via 192.168.1.1 {
         bfd on;
     };
     route 0.0.0.0/0 via 192.168.1.2 {
         bfd on;
     };
};
`--

,-- on gateways:
protocol bfd {
         interface "vlan*" {
                 passive;
         };
         debug all;
}
`--

Whenever I omit the "passive" statement, I can see "BFDv1 Control State 
Down" going on the wire; not sure why this appears to be the default on 
how to change this to "up":

,-- tcpdump:
08:11:41.732031 IP 192.168.1.3.23863 > 192.168.1.2.3784: BFDv1, Control, 
State Down, Flags: [none], length: 24
08:11:41.732033 ethertype IPv4, IP 192.168.1.3.23863 > 192.168.1.2.3784: 
BFDv1, Control, State Down, Flags: [none], length: 24
08:11:41.732034 ethertype IPv4, IP 192.168.1.3.23863 > 192.168.1.2.3784: 
BFDv1, Control, State Down, Flags: [none], length: 24
`--

What puzzles me is that I'd now expect the client to initiate a BFD 
connection to both gateways, however I do not see a single packet 
(except when not using passive I see what's pasted above). The config 
appears to get active however:

,--
2016-10-26 08:07:37 <INFO> Reconfiguring
2016-10-26 08:07:37 <TRACE> bfd1: Session to 192.168.1.1 reconfigured
2016-10-26 08:07:37 <TRACE> bfd1: Session to 192.168.1.2 reconfigured
2016-10-26 08:07:37 <TRACE> bfd1: Reconfigured
2016-10-26 08:07:37 <TRACE> static1: Reconfigured
2016-10-26 08:07:37 <INFO> Reconfigured
`--

This is what I see when BFD is not configured to be passive:

,--
2016-10-26 08:11:58 <TRACE> bfd1: Sending CTL to 192.168.1.2 [Down]
2016-10-26 08:11:58 <TRACE> bfd1: Sending CTL to 192.168.1.1 [Down]
(...)
`--

Any clues on how to debug this further?

Thanks,
J.