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

Anil Lohiya <alohiya@juniper.net> Thu, 27 February 2014 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <alohiya@juniper.net>
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 375E11A01AC for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 10:19:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.348
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=1.252] 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 zT0x-ioBe_-M for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 10:18:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (va3ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 020DA1A0163 for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 10:18:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail232-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.238) by VA3EHSOBE006.bigfish.com (10.7.40.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:18:54 +0000
Received: from mail232-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail232-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E974B5C0575; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:18:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -18
X-BigFish: VPS-18(zz98dI9371I936eIc85dhe0eahdb82hzz1f42h2148h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h2146h1202h1e76h2189h1d1ah1d2ah21bch1fc6hzz8275ch1de098h1033IL17326ah8275bh8275dh18c673h1de097h186068hz2fh109h2a8h839hbe3he5bhf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1bceh224fh1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h209eh20f0h2216h22d0h2336h2438h2461h2487h24ach24d7h2516h2545h255eh25cch24c1m1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail232-va3: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=alohiya@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(428001)(199002)(24454002)(377424004)(189002)(377454003)(95416001)(74662001)(15975445006)(81816001)(83506001)(74502001)(66066001)(79102001)(95666003)(59766001)(81686001)(74706001)(93136001)(76482001)(51856001)(77096001)(46102001)(16236675002)(54316002)(65816001)(15202345003)(47446002)(53806001)(63696002)(31966008)(74366001)(56776001)(85306002)(54356001)(92726001)(83322001)(19580405001)(81542001)(19580395003)(77982001)(94316002)(80022001)(36756003)(74876001)(92566001)(81342001)(50986001)(93516002)(69226001)(83072002)(561944002)(76786001)(47976001)(94946001)(87936001)(86362001)(90146001)(47736001)(49866001)(80976001)(85852003)(56816005)(4396001)(76796001)(87266001)(2656002)(94096001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB673; H:BLUPR05MB198.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:66.129.239.14; FPR:FEFCF91D.9EF45301.F7D341B8.59E4D0E1.2053A; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received: from mail232-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail232-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1393525131207926_14825; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:18:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS040.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.244]) by mail232-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E484B00064; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:18:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by VA3EHSMHS040.bigfish.com (10.7.99.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:18:39 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB673.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.206.16) by BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.423.0; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:18:39 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB198.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.191.12) by BLUPR05MB673.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.206.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.883.10; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:18:37 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB198.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.11.154]) by BLUPR05MB198.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.11.154]) with mapi id 15.00.0883.010; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:18:36 +0000
From: Anil Lohiya <alohiya@juniper.net>
To: 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: AQHPM9Ml3HZ2hXU6YEyQ1GTTphL/nZrJQcKAgAABS4CAAADRAP//nwYA
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:18:35 +0000
Message-ID: <CF34C0FC.7D7B%alohiya@juniper.net>
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>
In-Reply-To: <D26A6EDE-42D3-45A6-8FFC-3B1850433722@lucidvision.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.14]
x-forefront-prvs: 013568035E
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CF34C0FC7D7Balohiyajunipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-FOPE-CRA-Verdict: 157.56.240.101$paypal.com%41552%4%DuplicateDomain-c684c95e-93ad-459f-9d80-96fa46cd75af.juniper.net%False%False%0$
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%PAYPAL.COM$RO%1$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2vpn/F0LUWiYduxCOKkWcwJ3JW4KbKRo
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 18:19:01 -0000

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.