Re: [bess] BFD WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan; BESS input solicited

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Tue, 18 December 2018 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA86130F19; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:17:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lC5hEuM0MUo8; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:17:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12c.google.com (mail-lf1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74D89130F06; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:17:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id z13so13246900lfe.11; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:17:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=h00a9xfJ5NRiyWzhMEbyvEMr2a7vO5Eolch+fVWOKZg=; b=qmZLxft8Wx73Zr0mUcfJSVnUoYeu2qWbycXCoT5yaRJEY73u1VeJQK0LiNAHZpfKW8 x0i30hasQ6IMqj8XsHsBRQP3VwpPIT9ibRCpOJscNGFfXGIfxEaBycqg2bzsYTFvruuC O/YgPUc88k3UsNlfeurdd/wxfqQhENcYHVvuMZOK9B9lHFcYihLLdmJLQTj4xU1W3bV6 VefWY3OyM389M1aXJGtLdOwcFPJ0k7OnuGUkg/7vJvGTNpQuChwQwRTxYbrhdBY4dlya 2w+AEK1wRpe2MGLYK8n9VzJhJVt7m93e0Sr0ZL4OhZf6WY/ic5O3coR7Pd5OpTcplASZ h69A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=h00a9xfJ5NRiyWzhMEbyvEMr2a7vO5Eolch+fVWOKZg=; b=Sq3Hr/WzaqBOX4CIiNPOKTso+nmF3x27kw3ZYO3KvzzlIxE5DWdpA1pfCOqjoZ7N4t /fe86EN7C501JyKvaJxssrgPD2GY68egq6g0ZpYIlO45UxofReG3eFr4YRNgHRhGfBtz reOEo4xe/u1IT8vkcR6RSsEmjKjxnAkKi8SAVuCLHmKVHQCuUtjRSYzmtq48eOaCXkXF yY5/4qwNU72WmGqiFgATiICZcfQ1q06gVkGjvkeF864/I/Mbn7djDmVN+QdYb262Kbxc vNpjVGAvbPm2CHanmLStyo2fR9BISGMPurSt3qwFq0P1PMvdPkMejp5lk1UphWHBsUNQ f2og==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZMc+7Q9z3FxMNeujO8T8XZerAlPDnFQuvA0bjb97TxFT4jYtVB uTOQq8a9gaiCvV6RLpaz2sZMD+2HcVLcW98qEI/W4g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/UYiFuQaj0ZRCsp40yBAEcDUvqvxTUU8VKiOZFLbNgQgW5vJ+Qz/grMVVIg0CuclfFFl/8Mz7d8D6il7QTxpbE=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:c203:: with SMTP id l3mr10398599lfc.113.1545164230521; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:17:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181212140145.GA22828@pfrc.org> <CA+-tSzzLZ2e_JA3Z3-iP4btjzLd0gmUwmBUh-ae7p1Kc+0c3gg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+-tSzzLZ2e_JA3Z3-iP4btjzLd0gmUwmBUh-ae7p1Kc+0c3gg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:16:59 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUw7cm70CwQDiGDijvQ8GZUMt1a0Q_j1WvRXNfJUtUopQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, BESS <bess@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001479d5057d5195d6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/ek3oT0dWxkXYNDjaK4ST0pZp1CI>
Subject: Re: [bess] BFD WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan; BESS input solicited
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:17:15 -0000

Hi Anoop,
thank you for your comments and the suggested text. To clarify the extent
of the update, would the following accurately reflect the change in
Introduction you're proposing:
OLD TEXT:
   VXLAN is typically deployed in data centers interconnecting
   virtualized hosts of a tenant.  VXLAN addresses requirements of the
   Layer 2 and Layer 3 data center network infrastructure in the
   presence of VMs in a multi-tenant environment, discussed in section 3
   [RFC7348], by providing Layer 2 overlay scheme on a Layer 3 network.
NEW TEXT:
  One use of VXLAN is in data centers interconnecting
  VMs of a tenant.  VXLAN addresses requirements of the
   Layer 2 and Layer 3 data center network infrastructure in the
   presence of VMs in a multi-tenant environment, discussed in section 3
   of [RFC7348], by providing Layer 2 overlay scheme on a Layer 3 network.
   Another use is as an encapsulation for EVPN [RFC 8365].

  In the remainder of this document the terms VM and End Station
  are used interchangeably.

If my understanding of the proposed update is correct, I'd be glad to use
it (adding RFC 8365 as Informational reference).  Should note that in the
draft we never used "End Station". Perhaps the last sentence is not
required.

What do you think?

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:08 AM Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
wrote:

> I would change the introduction to the following to mention the use of
> VXLAN by BGP EVPN.
>
> Thanks,
> Anoop
>
> ==
>
>    "Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network" (VXLAN) [RFC7348] provides
>    an encapsulation scheme that allows building an overlay network by
>    decoupling the address space of the attached virtual hosts from that
>    of the network.
>
>   One use of VXLAN is in data centers interconnecting
>   VMs of a tenant.  VXLAN addresses requirements of the
>    Layer 2 and Layer 3 data center network infrastructure in the
>    presence of VMs in a multi-tenant environment, discussed in section 3
>    of [RFC7348], by providing Layer 2 overlay scheme on a Layer 3 network.
>    Another use is as an encapsulation for EVPN [RFC 8365].
>
>   In the remainder of this document the terms VM and End Station
>   are used interchangeably.
>
>    In the absence of a router in the overlay, a VM can communicate with
>    another VM only if they are on the same VXLAN segment.  VMs are
>    unaware of VXLAN tunnels as a VXLAN tunnel is terminated on a VXLAN
>    Tunnel End Point (VTEP) (hypervisor/TOR).  VTEPs (hypervisor/TOR) are
>    responsible for encapsulating and decapsulating frames exchanged
>    among VMs.
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 6:02 AM Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:
> >
> > BESS Working Group members,
> >
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-04
> >
> > BFD has finished working group last call on BFD for Vxlan and is about
> ready
> > to request publication as an RFC.  A last minute comment suggested that
> we
> > should consider inviting comment from your working group for expertise.
> >
> > We will be leaving the last call open until December 21 to leave time for
> > final comments.
> >
> > -- Jeff (for BFD)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > BESS mailing list
> > BESS@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>