Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

I do not understand the value of option 2.
Which is why I asked in my initial review to move to option 1.

And option 2 requires stealing MAC addresses from the users, which seems 
to me to be a very bad thing that option 1 avoids.

Yours,
Joel

On 10/22/2019 2:17 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Anoop, et al.,
> I agree with your understanding of what is being defined in the current 
> version of the BFD over VxLAN specification. But, as I understand, the 
> WG is discussing the scope before the WGLC is closed. I believe there 
> are three options:
> 
>  1. single BFD session between two VTEPs
>  2. single BFD session per VNI between two VTEPs
>  3. multiple BFD sessions per VNI between two VTEPs
> 
> The current text reflects #2. Is WG accepts this scope? If not, which 
> option WG would accept?
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:09 PM Anoop Ghanwani <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     I concur with Joel's assessment with the following clarifications.
> 
>     The current document is already capable of monitoring multiple VNIs
>     between VTEPs.
> 
>     The issue under discussion was how do we use BFD to monitor multiple
>     VAPs that use the same VNI between a pair of VTEPs.  The use case
>     for this is not clear to me, as from my understanding, we cannot
>     have a situation with multiple VAPs using the same VNI--there is 1:1
>     mapping between VAP and VNI.
> 
>     Anoop
> 
>     On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 6:06 AM Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>           From what I can tell, there are two separate problems.
>         The document we have is a VTEP-VTEP monitoring document.  There
>         is no
>         need for that document to handle the multiple VNI case.
>         If folks want a protocol for doing BFD monitoring of things
>         behind the
>         VTEPs (multiple VNIs), then do that as a separate document.   The
>         encoding will be a tenant encoding, and thus sesparate from what is
>         defined in this document.
> 
>         Yours,
>         Joel
> 
>         On 10/21/2019 5:07 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>          > Santosh and others,
>          >
>          > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 07:50:20PM +0530, Santosh P K wrote:
>          >>     Thanks for your explanation. This helps a lot. I would
>         wait for more
>          >> comments from others to see if this what we need in this
>         draft to be
>          >> supported based on that we can provide appropriate sections
>         in the draft.
>          >
>          > The threads on the list have spidered to the point where it
>         is challenging
>          > to follow what the current status of the draft is, or should
>         be.  :-)
>          >
>          > However, if I've followed things properly, the question below
>         is really the
>          > hinge point on what our encapsulation for BFD over vxlan
>         should look like.
>          > Correct?
>          >
>          > Essentially, do we or do we not require the ability to permit
>         multiple BFD
>          > sessions between distinct VAPs?
>          >
>          > If this is so, do we have a sense as to how we should proceed?
>          >
>          > -- Jeff
>          >
>          > [context preserved below...]
>          >
>          >> Santosh P K
>          >>
>          >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:10 AM <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>          >>
>          >>> Hi Santosh,
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>> With regard to the question whether we should allow
>         multiple BFD sessions
>          >>> for the same VNI or not, IMHO we should allow it, more
>         explanation as
>          >>> follows.
>          >>>
>          >>> Below is a figure derived from figure 2 of RFC8014 (An
>         Architecture for
>          >>> Data-Center Network Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3)).
>          >>>
>          >>>                      |         Data Center Network (IP)   
>              |
>          >>>                      |                                     
>             |
>          >>>                     
>         +-----------------------------------------+
>          >>>                           |                           |
>          >>>                           |       Tunnel Overlay      |
>          >>>              +------------+---------+     
>           +---------+------------+
>          >>>              | +----------+-------+ |       |
>         +-------+----------+ |
>          >>>              | |  Overlay Module  | |       | |  Overlay
>         Module  | |
>          >>>              | +---------+--------+ |       |
>         +---------+--------+ |
>          >>>              |           |          |       |           | 
>                  |
>          >>>       NVE1   |           |          |       |           | 
>                  | NVE2
>          >>>              |  +--------+-------+  |       | 
>         +--------+-------+  |
>          >>>              |  |VNI1 VNI2  VNI1 |  |       |  | VNI1 VNI2
>         VNI1 |  |
>          >>>              |  +-+-----+----+---+  |       | 
>         +-+-----+-----+--+  |
>          >>>              |VAP1| VAP2|    | VAP3 |       |VAP1| VAP2|   
>           | VAP3|
>          >>>              +----+-----+----+------+     
>           +----+-----+-----+-----+
>          >>>                   |     |    |                   |     |     |
>          >>>                   |     |    |                   |     |     |
>          >>>                   |     |    |                   |     |     |
>          >>>           
>         -------+-----+----+-------------------+-----+-----+-------
>          >>>                   |     |    |     Tenant        |     |     |
>          >>>              TSI1 | TSI2|    | TSI3          TSI1| TSI2|   
>           |TSI3
>          >>>                  +---+ +---+ +---+             +---+ +---+ 
>           +---+
>          >>>                  |TS1| |TS2| |TS3|             |TS4| |TS5| 
>           |TS6|
>          >>>                  +---+ +---+ +---+             +---+ +---+ 
>           +---+
>          >>>
>          >>> To my understanding, the BFD sessions between NVE1 and NVE2
>         are actually
>          >>> initiated and terminated at VAP of NVE.
>          >>>
>          >>> If the network operator want to set up one BFD session
>         between VAP1 of
>          >>> NVE1 and VAP1of NVE2, at the same time another BFD session
>         between VAP3 of
>          >>> NVE1 and VAP3 of NVE2, although the two BFD sessions are
>         for the same
>          >>> VNI1, I believe it's reasonable, so that's why I think we
>         should allow it
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         nvo3 mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>