RE: Request for comments: draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam-01.txt

David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com> Thu, 27 February 2014 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 934691A02B0 for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 14:04:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 pG96Tce-5VFC for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 14:04:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206121A0131 for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 14:04:06 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c618062d-b7f858e0000031c7-9a-530fb64f8d51
Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B8.02.12743.F46BF035; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 23:03:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from EUSAAMB105.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.122]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 17:04:03 -0500
From: David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>
To: Anil Lohiya <alohiya@juniper.net>, Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: RE: Request for comments: draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam-01.txt
Thread-Topic: Request for comments: draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPM9Mjl3VAYRq6jkmz44B33P5aJZrJlZSAgAABS4CAAADRAIAAJSOA///pCJA=
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 22:04:02 +0000
Message-ID: <E6C17D2345AC7A45B7D054D407AA205C3922BD91@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
References: <CAPCgso32vYqPEq4upa1FG78quZwBOJpzsCSCYTX2R7XgHzLiNA@mail.gmail.com> <B23247FA-7CED-4F78-8858-076CA83F613C@broadcom.com> <CF351FD5.B21EA%wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com> <D26A6EDE-42D3-45A6-8FFC-3B1850433722@lucidvision.com> <CF34C0FC.7D7B%alohiya@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <CF34C0FC.7D7B%alohiya@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.9]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E6C17D2345AC7A45B7D054D407AA205C3922BD91eusaamb105erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprOIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPiK7/Nv5gg54vxhbb1t9mtnj87RC7 xbdrJ1gsHr2ssHg4+RK7xYELWxgtZj/+webA7tH6bC+rx5IlP5k8rjddZffY+mQJu8feSa8Z Pc7NmcoWwBbFZZOSmpNZllqkb5fAldF+4gdrweWzjBWNe5tZGxi/bGPsYuTkkBAwkfj+Zx4r hC0mceHeerYuRi4OIYEjjBInJ2yBcpYzSuzv2gxWxSZgILHn/xdGkISIQD+jxJzbF8CqmAVm M0qcmnuEDaRKWMBV4tX79SwgtoiAm8SuFXvYIWw/iZlnHoJNYhFQldj2cjtYDa+Ar8ThWfeY INbNYpJY+fkdM0iCE2jd7vUPwIYyAh34/dQaJhCbWUBc4taT+UwQhwtILNlznhnCFpV4+fgf 1EOKEvv6p7ND1OdLrPt7kxFimaDEyZlPWCYwis5CMmoWkrJZSMog4joSC3Z/YoOwtSWWLXzN DGOfOfCYCVl8ASP7KkaO0uLUstx0I4NNjMDIPSbBpruDcc9Ly0OM0hwsSuK8X946BwkJpCeW pGanphakFsUXleakFh9iZOLglGpg3Mj1Wd/+0JYny+9lMz99xxpZ1L+i3Lak/Z3WXHW7sNXs C8Wcvt77mRmRcj326g33jzplPxxUUpJS75lOT+Xxjyyb9u98vUvdDnae43xzMu5MeHmoKumF fML15LdLTj69NdW7a6ptm51kUumG4mORoqsyVma8czji3HgmRNTdcMoXze2x0TzblViKMxIN tZiLihMBSqeUpaoCAAA=
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2vpn/82OboQbZnlSbxd8kRN3h4SSohPs
Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>, Pradeep Jain <pradeep@nuagenetworks.net>, Vinay Bannai <vbannai@paypal.com>, Ravi Shekhar <rshekhar@juniper.net>
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks <l2vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn/>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 22:04:09 -0000

Other than allowing an OAM packet to be distinguished, I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of the nested header.  The MEP is still the receiving NVE, so it is not testing (for example) NVE to guest OS stack....

And IMO SFC will introduce new requirements as the guest OS will be a MIP.

So at this point I'm not sold!

Cheers
Dave

From: L2vpn [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Anil Lohiya
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 10:19 AM
To: Thomas Nadeau; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; Pradeep Jain; Vinay Bannai; Ravi Shekhar
Subject: Re: Request for comments: draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam-01.txt


Existing ping/traceroute mechanisms don't work in the virtualized environment e.g. ping may report that IP reachability between the ingress and egress tunnel endpoints is fine but the end systems (i.e. VM, physical server etc.) connectivity for a tenant could still be broken. This is because ping only verifies basic connectivity between two endpoints in the underlay but NOT in the context of overlay segments. Hence, we need debugging tools that work in the overlay environment. Think why there was a need to have lsp ping ... requirement with IP overlays is not much different.

Question is not whether applications are resilient or not... One can not ignore the fact that operators have to think about having the right tools when that "inevitable" call  comes from their customer about deteriorating application performance or traffic blackhole and there are no tools today specific to overlay network debugging.

- Anil

From: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com<mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com>>
Date: Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:05 AM
To: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>>
Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org<mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>" <l2vpn@ietf.org<mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>>, Pradeep Jain <pradeep@nuagenetworks.net<mailto:pradeep@nuagenetworks.net>>, Vinay Bannai <vbannai@paypal.com<mailto:vbannai@paypal.com>>, Ravi Shekhar <rshekhar@juniper.net<mailto:rshekhar@juniper.net>>
Subject: Re: Request for comments: draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam-01.txt


The question is, and perhaps the draft could explain this, is why existing tools a) are insufficient and b) cannot be modified.
Operationally speaking, b is preferred if you ask me as learning a new tool/model for diagnosis and trouble-shooting is expensive and painful.
For example, if we took the tact of reinventing say IP ping for every underlying transport, then we'd have 50 tools by now.

--Tom



On Feb 27, 2014:11:02 AM, at 11:02 AM, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote:


Because we also need to trace L2 endpoints besides IP endpoint.

From: Shahram Davari <davari@broadcom.com<mailto:davari@broadcom.com>>
Date: Thursday 27 February 2014 16:58
To: Kanwar Singh <kanwar@nuagenetworks.net<mailto:kanwar@nuagenetworks.net>>
Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org<mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>" <l2vpn@ietf.org<mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>>, Pradeep Jain <pradeep@nuagenetworks.net<mailto:pradeep@nuagenetworks.net>>, Vinay Bannai <vbannai@paypal.com<mailto:vbannai@paypal.com>>, Ravi Shekhar <rshekhar@juniper.net<mailto:rshekhar@juniper.net>>
Subject: Re: Request for comments: draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam-01.txt

Hi

Why don't you use existing IP based OAM messages such as BFD, OWAMP, TWAMP, etc.

Regards,
Shahram


On Feb 27, 2014, at 7:46 AM, "Kanwar Singh" <kanwar@nuagenetworks.net<mailto:kanwar@nuagenetworks.net>> wrote:
Dear All,

We have submitted the below draft that proposes Generic OAM and Datapath Failure Detection Mechanism(s) for Overlay Networks.

We would like to solicit inputs from the members of L2VPN WG.

Please review the same and update us with your inputs/feedback.


Warm Regards

- Kanwar





A new version of I-D, draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Kanwar Singh and posted to the

IETF repository.

Name:           draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam
Revision:       01
Title:          Generic Overlay OAM and Datapath Failure Detection
Document date:  2014-02-12
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          44
URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam-01.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam/
Htmlized:      http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam-01
Diff:              http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam-01

Abstract:
   This proposal describes a mechanism that can be used to detect Data
   Path Failures of various overlay technologies as VXLAN, NVGRE,
   MPLSoGRE and MPLSoUDP and verifying/sanity of their Control and Data
   Plane for given Overlay Segment.  This document defines the following
   for each of the above Overlay Technologies:

   o  Encapsulation of OAM Packet, such that it has same Outer and
      Overlay Header as any End-System's data going over the same
      Overlay Segment.

   o  The mechanism to trace the Underlay that is exercised by any
      Overlay Segment.

   o  Procedure to verify presence of any given Tenant VM or End-System
      within a given Overlay Segment at Overlay End-Point.

   Even though the present proposal addresses Overlay OAM for VXLAN,
   NVGRE, MPLSoGRE and MPLSoUDP, but the procedures described are
   generic enough to accommodate OAM for any other Overlay Technology.