Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08.txt

Anoop,
   Thanks for your comments. For non-managment VNI why do we need to have
multicast MAC address for backward compatibility for existing
implementation or there are any use cases such that we can avoid learning
of remote end VTEP?

Thanks
Santosh P K

On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 10:41 AM Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
wrote:

> Hi Joel,
>
> In that case I would propose the following text:
>
> "Destination MAC: If the BFD session is not using the Management VNI,
> the destination MAC address MUST be the address
> associated with the destination VTEP.  If the BFD session uses
> the Management VNI, it may use any MAC address, since use of the
> Management VNI ensures that these packets will never be forwarded to a VM.
> The MAC address may be configured, or it may be learned via
> a control plane protocol. The details of how the MAC address
> to be used is obtained are outside the scope of this document."
>
> That said, for non-Management VNI, do we want to allow for flexibility
> for an implementation to use a multicast MAC of their choosing?  If so, we
> should probably add a sentence for that too.
>
> Thanks,
> Anoop
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 7:52 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Anoop, I think I at least am misunderstanding you.
>> If one is using the management VNI, as I understand it there is no
>> tenant.  So there are no tenant MAC addresses.  (This is one of the
>> reasons I like using the management VNI.)
>>
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 11/3/2019 10:32 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
>> > Hi Greg,
>> >
>> > In the case of the management VNI, are we trying to say that we would
>> > allow any MAC address other than a tenant MAC address?  I would suggest
>> > some more text be added to clarify what is permitted on the management
>> > VLAN.  Assuming that we want to allow any MAC other than a tenant MAC,
>> > how does this get enforced?  In other words, what can be done for the
>> > network to protect itself if a sender violates this?
>> >
>> > One possible answer is to restrict the MAC address that may be used to
>> > one that is owned by the VTEP or a "agreed on" multicast MAC address.
>> > That means the receiver only needs to validate for those, and just
>> > treats everything else as data.
>> >
>> > Also, for interoperability purposes, it would be best to specify that a
>> > receiver MUST be able to handle any valid MAC address for the BFD
>> > session, while a sender MAY pick any of them.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Anoop
>> >
>> > On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 6:50 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> > <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     Hi Anoop,
>> >     thank you for your comments and questions. Please find my notes
>> >     in-line tagged GIM>>.
>> >
>> >     Regards,
>> >     Greg
>> >
>> >     On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 4:24 PM Anoop Ghanwani <
>> anoop@alumni.duke..edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
>> >     <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> wrote:
>> >
>> >         Hi Greg,
>> >
>> >         A few comments.
>> >
>> >         The draft has nits, specifically around the way the IPv6 address
>> >         is written.
>> >
>> >         In section 4:
>> >
>> >         BFD packet MUST be encapsulated ->
>> >
>> >         BFD packets MUST be encapsulated
>> >
>> >     GIM>> Thanks, will do.
>> >
>> >
>> >          >>>
>> >
>> >         Destination MAC: This MUST NOT be of one of tenant's MAC
>> >                   addresses.  The destination MAC address MAY be the
>> address
>> >                   associated with the destination VTEP.  The MAC
>> address MAY be
>> >                   configured, or it MAY be learned via a control plane
>> protocol.
>> >                   The details of how the MAC address is obtained are
>> outside the
>> >                   scope of this document.
>> >
>> >          >>>
>> >         It looks like we have removed the option of using a well-known
>> >         IANA assigned MAC.  If so, why is the above a MAY and not a
>> >         MUST?  What else can it be?  One interpretation is that it can
>> >         be anything unicast, or multicast, as long as it's not a tenant
>> >         MAC.  Is that the intent?  If so, it would be better to state it
>> >         that way.  Also (and this is purely editorial), I think it would
>> >         be better if the first sentence above were moved to the end of
>> >         the paragraph.
>> >
>> >     GIM>> Yes, you're right, we've removed that option and have removed
>> >     the request to IANA. I also agree that " MAY be the address
>> >     associated with the destination VTEP" is not the right choice of
>> >     normative language. On the other hand, MUST might be too restrictive
>> >     if BFD session is using the Management VNI. Would the following
>> >     update address your concern:
>> >     OLD TEXT:
>> >               Destination MAC: This MUST NOT be of one of tenant's MAC
>> >               addresses.  The destination MAC address MAY be the address
>> >               associated with the destination VTEP.  The MAC address
>> MAY be
>> >               configured, or it MAY be learned via a control plane
>> protocol.
>> >               The details of how the MAC address is obtained are
>> outside the
>> >               scope of this document.
>> >     NEW TEXT:
>> >               Destination MAC: If the BFD session is not using the
>> >     Management VNI,
>> >               the destination MAC address MUST be the address
>> >               associated with the destination VTEP.  The Destination MAC
>> >               MUST NOT be one of the tenant's MAC addresses.
>> >              The MAC address MAY be configured, or it MAY be learned via
>> >              a control plane protocol. The details of how the MAC
>> address
>> >              is obtained are outside the scope of this document.
>> >
>> >
>> >         "The inner Ethernet frame carrying the BFD
>> >             Control packet- has the following format:"
>> >
>> >         Extraneous '-' after packet.
>> >
>> >     GIM>> Thanks, will do that too.
>> >
>> >
>> >         Thanks,
>> >         Anoop
>> >
>> >         On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 10:53 AM Greg Mirsky
>> >         <gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >             Dear All,
>> >             the new version includes updates resulting from the
>> >             discussions of Joel's comments in the RtrDir review of BFD
>> >             over VXLAN draft, comments from Anoop, and Dinesh. On behalf
>> >             of editors, thank you for your constructive comments and for
>> >             sharing your expertise, all much appreciated.
>> >             I hope we've addressed all your comments, and the draft can
>> >             proceed further.
>> >
>> >             Regards,
>> >             Greg
>> >
>> >             ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> >             From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> >             <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>>
>> >             Date: Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 10:45 AM
>> >             Subject: New Version Notification for
>> >             draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08..txt
>> >             To: Gregory Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> >             <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>, Mallik Mudigonda
>> >             <mmudigon@cisco.com <mailto:mmudigon@cisco.com>>, Sudarsan
>> >             Paragiri <sudarsan.225@gmail.com
>> >             <mailto:sudarsan.225@gmail.com>>, Vengada Prasad Govindan
>> >             <venggovi@cisco.com <mailto:venggovi@cisco.com>>, Santosh
>> >             Pallagatti <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> >             <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >             A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08.txt
>> >             has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted
>> to the
>> >             IETF repository.
>> >
>> >             Name:           draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan
>> >             Revision:       08
>> >             Title:          BFD for VXLAN
>> >             Document date:  2019-11-01
>> >             Group:          bfd
>> >             Pages:          11
>> >             URL:
>> >
>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08.txt
>> >             Status:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan/
>> >             Htmlized:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08
>> >             Htmlized:
>> >             https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan
>> >             Diff:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08
>> >
>> >             Abstract:
>> >                 This document describes the use of the Bidirectional
>> >             Forwarding
>> >                 Detection (BFD) protocol in point-to-point Virtual
>> >             eXtensible Local
>> >                 Area Network (VXLAN) tunnels forming up an overlay
>> network.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >             Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the
>> >             time of submission
>> >             until the htmlized version and diff are available at
>> >             tools.ietf.org <http://tools..ietf.org> <
>> http://tools.ietf.org>.
>> >
>> >             The IETF Secretariat
>> >
>>
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> nvo3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>