Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Fri, 24 November 2023 01:41 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C57DC18FCDA; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:41:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.862
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.862 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0z4DTPoxlM6v; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:41:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb33.google.com (mail-yb1-xb33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b33]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29AD9C18FCD7; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:41:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb33.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-d9ca471cf3aso1325142276.2; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:41:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1700790068; x=1701394868; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=gOm5tTBb41mL4kHi5a5Aj+QrVZITybDtscSYl8i7lLk=; b=UESsgZGP0uqM2slGixcjENU+nz016jMsEijUqo/TEQ8cMZbTlpnQvrX+dXZ1TCU/nJ ghucUX1SiUVVFjFOySTvYplkSrOTpZKku/gCLP6ljDCPhVWvW7e8193hr5MBkd4jm3ly GppwmkMpAPJlTQ40RuvVzLqzzsdKsLjHqCE5hsJrA4K1/PvzR0ER7ajQpmddWy/xJvo7 +GXA7on85gCYG9S1ROG9GSxK1fDdgaXuVYUE0plo9z1ADx40a1W6gHbbnMeDget8RAwn YDSBOgxIjTWhOcR0RSZT3N02aTBU8KQ2s47wxL+NrRblDc2xlqYfG+8vNhoPPk36kEQM 5n0w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700790068; x=1701394868; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=gOm5tTBb41mL4kHi5a5Aj+QrVZITybDtscSYl8i7lLk=; b=czd3QY+hjm+OI5hgsvuDLQP/dd/RkRPLi9FD11ZwS+wAMbFVmJfZz38rZ6+lgT/Kxc nmrVVPQNOXFelr7UPxdqEeH3g6rlQpr+H4MXHkVg+lia4iYJufAdxfua+Gaa9ZGzUFav LcdHGOQMi8bU9WHcpOr5Lz+KHDyGJs1dLTE+A6vzY7TyiWqeLeQUfyn5n6Hqf+Ekr63S ncezMKvqpcZuGDgHFvGxmc1GuMyOSV/1/nsohg318f2zJRB799WFGlu6UfuE2rTbi73j DhRhQwR42DRMOLOJHSYpDvB/7uQPG1DBfcIbDgOAq1+I4mOBXO6Ejz0YLhMU8GwGC8Hz zr8Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy3xKr9I6sbF3UktFzj4hmo2RI9R9EsGDob5ZoKVznrU8B9mVOt wTKfX26glNXoV4urvFQlaY7vRYJ1YnKNDTiO0dU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGb/qtlKJdSHY8GGvPYKQNNJ5fLEGz7+sHSBZPmfXcRcLgloRBm2thBgNAJm9NUYYs/JvNmpnXMEVzlikZbIVw=
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:f4e:0:b0:da3:b4a0:8807 with SMTP id y14-20020a5b0f4e000000b00da3b4a08807mr940100ybr.65.1700790067861; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:41:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+RyBmXtCTPZt3OZZV8Z2Wq3f=rLT5T7s9VZCRiynqiMp6h-AQ@mail.gmail.com> <202311231638466736076@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202311231638466736076@zte.com.cn>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:40:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUPyVHSWHmhKkCcxCSUi6T39Opzb8w1M4k_KkEWuPSYAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Cc: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com, nvo3@ietf.org, nvo3-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d51d46060adc0b0d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/V1KnoPqs5_gXui_YpufcnLLP7lo>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Network Virtualization Overlays \(NVO3\) Working Group" <nvo3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nvo3/>
List-Post: <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 01:41:18 -0000
Hi Xiao Min, thank you for your kind consideration of the proposed updates to address your concerns. I have one question logged below under the GIM5>> tag. Regards, Greg On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 12:39 AM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > Thank you for the prompt reply. > > Please see inline with [XM-5]>>>. > Original > *From: *GregMirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> > *To: *肖敏10093570; > *Cc: *aldrin.ietf@gmail.com <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>;nvo3@ietf.org < > nvo3@ietf.org>;nvo3-chairs@ietf.org <nvo3-chairs@ietf.org>; > draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org <draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org>; > *Date: *2023年11月23日 01:14 > *Subject: **Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for > draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07* > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > nvo3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > Hi Xiao Min, > thank you for your patience and detailed explanation of your concerns. > Please find my notes below tagged GIM4>>. Attached, please find the updated > working version of the draft. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 10:56 PM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: > >> Hi Greg, >> >> >> Thanks for the reply. >> >> Please see inline with [XM-4]>>>. >> Original >> *From: *GregMirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> >> *To: *肖敏10093570; >> *Cc: *Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>;NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>; >> nvo3-chairs@ietf.org <nvo3-chairs@ietf.org>; >> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org <draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org >> >; >> *Date: *2023年11月18日 06:56 >> *Subject: **Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for >> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07* >> Hi Xiao Min, >> thank you for your thorough review. Please find my notes below tagged >> GIM3>>. Attached, please find the updated working version . >> >> Regards, >> Greg >> >> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 11:49 PM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: >> >>> Hi Greg, >>> >>> >>> Thank you for the reply and proposed updates. >>> >>> Please see inline with [XM-3]>>>. >>> >>> >>> Original >>> *From: *GregMirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> >>> *To: *肖敏10093570; >>> *Cc: *aldrin.ietf@gmail.com <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>;nvo3@ietf.org < >>> nvo3@ietf.org>;nvo3-chairs@ietf.org <nvo3-chairs@ietf.org>; >>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org <draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org >>> >; >>> *Date: *2023年10月26日 10:43 >>> *Subject: **Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for >>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07* >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nvo3 mailing list >>> nvo3@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >>> >>> Hi Xiao Min, >>> thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the proposed changes and >>> the proposed update. I've accepted your idea with a minor editorial >>> modification: >>> OLD TEXT: >>> In the first case, a communication problem between Network >>> Virtualization Edge (NVE) device A and NVE C was observed. The >>> underlay, e.g., IP network, forwarding is working well but the Geneve >>> connection is unstable for all tenants of NVE A and NVE C. >>> Troubleshooting and localization of the problem can be done >>> irrespective of the VNI value. >>> NEW TEXT: >>> In the first case, consider when a communication problem >>> between Network Virtualization Edge (NVE) device A and NVE C exists. >>> Upon the investigation, the operator discovers that the forwarding in >>> the underlay, e.g., the IP network, is working well. Still, the >>> Geneve connection is unstable for all NVE A and NVE C tenants. >>> Detection, troubleshooting, and localization of the problem can be >>> done irrespective of the VNI value. >>> [XM-3]>>> It looks good to me. >>> >>> >>> I hope that you agree with the new version. Attached, please find the >>> new working version of the draft and the diff highlighting all the updates. >>> >>> [XM-3]>>> It seems some of my previous comments are missed. Repeat them >>> as below. >>> >>> In Section 2, it says "In the latter case, the test packet MUST use the same Geneve encapsulation as the data packet (except for the value in the Protocol Type field [RFC8926]), including the value in the Virtual Network Identifier (VNI) field." Why does it say "except for the value in the Protocol Type field [RFC8926]"? I don't think so. >>> >>> GIM3>> If the value of the Protocol Type field indicates Ethernet >> payload (0x6558), then IPv4 or IPv6 encapsulated OAM packets must be >> identified by a different respective values in the Protocol Type field. >> Wou;d you agree? >> >> [XM-4]>>> I suspect that you confuse the second case with the first case. >> In the sentence I quoted, the context is "In the latter case", i.e., the >> second case, in this case whether the Protocol Type or the VNI would be the >> same between the test packet and the data packet. Please refer >> to draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve. >> > GIM4>> I clearly missed the context. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I > think that the sentence can be removed altogether. WDYT? > > [XM-5]>>> That's fine to me. > >> >>> In Section 2.1, it says "The ICMP echo reply is encapsulated in Geneve as specified in Section 2.2...", that's incorrect, do you mean Section 3? >>> >>> GIM3>> I think that the reference to Section 2.2 is correct as that >> section defines the encapsulation of an OAM packet in Geneve using the >> Management VNI. Section 3 only lists references to the relevant RFCs. >> >> [XM-4]>>> Note that the title of Figure 2 of Section 2.2 is "Geneve >> IP/UDP Encapsulation of an Active OAM Packet", however the ICMP echo reply >> is *NOT* a UDP-based OAM packet. >> > GIM4>> This part has changed, and the updated text is as follows: > NEW TEXT: > Active OAM over a Management VNI in the Geneve network uses an IP > encapsulation. Protocols such as BFD [RFC5880] or STAMP [RFC8762] > use UDP transport. The destination UDP port number in the inner UDP > header (Figure 2) identifies the OAM protocol. > I think that the text above includes IP and IP/UDP encapsulations of > active OAM in Geneve. To emphasize that, I propose updating the caption of > Figure 2 as follows: > OLD TEXT: > Geneve IP/UDP Encapsulation of an Active OAM Packet > NEW TEXT: > An Example of Geneve IP/UDP Encapsulation of an Active OAM Packet > > WDYT? > > [XM-5]>>> This is a Standards Track document, not Informational one. So if > the intention is to include both IP and IP/UDP encapsulations of active OAM > in Geneve in Section 2.2, then I suggest you to add a new > figure illustrating the IP encapsulation of active OAM in Geneve explicitly. > GIM5>> I believe that a reader experienced in the subject would be able to properly deduce raw IP encapsulation based on the example displayed in Figure 2.2 since the IP/UDP encapsulation doesn't use anything UDP-specific. Perhaps our Shepherd or someone from the group would kindly share their opinion on whether an additional figure is helpful. > > Cheers, > > Xiao Min > >> >> In Section 2.2, it says "Active OAM in Geneve network uses an IP encapsulation", lacking the context of the Management VNI case. >>> >>> GIM3>> Would the following update make that clear: >> OLD TEXT: >> Active OAM in Geneve network uses an IP encapsulation. >> NEW TEXT: >> Active OAM over a Management VNI in the Geneve network uses an IP >> encapsulation. >> >> [XM-4]>>> It looks good to me. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Xiao Min >> >> >> In Section 2.2, it says "The UDP source port can be used to provide entropy...", I don't think so. >>> >>> GIM3>> I agree, this is unnecessary as active OAM will use the same >> entropy mechanisms as the Geneve data flow. >> >>> In Section 2.2, it says "Destination IP: IP address MUST NOT be of one of tenant's IP addresses. The IP address MUST be set to the loopback address 127.0.0.1/32 for IPv4, or the loopback address ::1/128 for IPv6 [RFC4291]." Now that "the IP address MUST be set to the loopback address", why does it need to say "IP address MUST NOT be of one of tenant's IP addresses"? >>> >>> GIM3>> Thank you for pointing that out. I agree, "MUST NOT" is >> unnecessary as "MUST be set to the loopback address" is sufficient. >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Xiao Min >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Greg >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 8:07 PM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Greg, >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you for the reply. >>>> >>>> Please see inline with [XM-2]>>>. >>>> Original >>>> *From: *GregMirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> >>>> *To: *肖敏10093570; >>>> *Cc: *aldrin.ietf@gmail.com <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>;nvo3@ietf.org < >>>> nvo3@ietf.org>;nvo3-chairs@ietf.org <nvo3-chairs@ietf.org>; >>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org < >>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org>; >>>> *Date: *2023年10月12日 22:01 >>>> *Subject: **Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for >>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07* >>>> Hi Xiao Min, >>>> thank you for your clarifications and detailed questions. Please find >>>> my notes below tagged by GIM2>>. Also, attached in the new working version >>>> and diff highlighting updates. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 9:46 AM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Greg, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks for your consideration of my comments. >>>>> >>>>> I noticed that a new -08 version has been posted, so my further >>>>> comments would be based on the latest revision. >>>>> >>>>> Please see inline. >>>>> Original >>>>> *From: *GregMirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> >>>>> *To: *肖敏10093570; >>>>> *Cc: *aldrin.ietf@gmail.com <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>;nvo3@ietf.org < >>>>> nvo3@ietf.org>;nvo3-chairs@ietf.org <nvo3-chairs@ietf.org>; >>>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org < >>>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org>; >>>>> *Date: *2023年09月22日 09:09 >>>>> *Subject: **Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for >>>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07* >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> nvo3 mailing list >>>>> nvo3@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >>>>> >>>>> Hi Xiao Min, >>>>> thank you for your detailed comments and thoughtful suggestions. >>>>> Please find my notes below tagged GIM>>. Attached are the new working >>>>> version of the draft and the diff highlighting the updates. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Greg >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 7:12 PM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Greg, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for taking my suggestions into account. I believe this >>>>>> document is on the right way. >>>>>> >>>>>> Still, I want to extract some text from the working version for >>>>>> further discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> In section 2.1, it says "Encapsulation of test packets for both cases >>>>>> is discussed in Section 2.2." >>>>>> >>>>>> As I've said before, the OAM over Geneve encap defined in section 2.2 >>>>>> applies *only* to the Management VNI, i.e., the first case. >>>>>> >>>>> GIM>> I agree and removed this new sentence appending the following >>>>> sentence to the paragraph that introduces the Management VNI: >>>>> NEW TEXT: >>>>> Encapsulation of >>>>> >>>>> test packets using the Management VNI is discussed in Section 2.2. >>>>> >>>>> [XM]>>> Thank you. Except for this sentence in Section 2.1, there are >>>>> still some sentences in Section 1 that seems confusing to me, e.g., it says >>>>> "note that the IP encapsulation of OAM applies to those Virtual Network >>>>> Identifiers (VNIs) that support the use of the necessary values of the >>>>> Protocol Type field in the Geneve header". Could you please go through the >>>>> whole document to make all the statements consistent? Some references >>>>> to draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve and draft-xiao-nvo3-pm-geneve may be added to >>>>> help the reader understand the difference between the Management VNI case >>>>> and the really deployed VNI case. >>>>> >>>> GIM2>> Would the following edit of the text in Section 1 make the text >>>> clear: >>>> OLD TEXT: >>>> Also, >>>> note that the IP encapsulation of OAM applies to those Virtual >>>> Network Identifiers (VNIs) that support the use of the necessary >>>> values of the Protocol Type field in the Geneve header, i.e., >>>> Ethertypes for IPv4 or IPv6. It does not apply to VNIs that lack >>>> that support, e.g., VNIs that only support Ethernet Ethertypes. >>>> Analysis and definition of other types of OAM encapsulation in Geneve >>>> are outside the scope of this document. >>>> NEW TEXT: >>>> The IP >>>> encapsulation of Geneve OAM defined in this document applies to an >>>> overlay service by way of introducing a Management Virtual >>>> Network Identifier (VNI) that could be used in combination with >>>> various values of the Protocol Type field in the Geneve header, i.e., >>>> Ethertypes for IPv4 or IPv6. Analysis and definition of other types >>>> of OAM encapsulation in Geneve are outside the scope of this >>>> document. >>>> >>>> [XM-2]>>> various values? It looks only two values, i.e., Ethertypes >>>> for IPv4 or IPv6. >>>> >>>> >>>> Could you highlight other cases that can benefit from a clarification? >>>> >>>> [XM-2]>>> In Section 2, it says >>>> >>>> "In the latter case, the test packet MUST use the same Geneve encapsulation as the data packet (except for the value in the Protocol Type field [RFC8926]), including the value in the Virtual Network Identifier (VNI) field." >>>> Why does it say "except for the value in the Protocol Type field [RFC8926]"? I don't think so. >>>> In Section 2.1, it says "The ICMP echo reply is encapsulated in Geneve as specified in Section 2.2...", that's incorrect, do you mean Section 3? >>>> In Section 2.2, it says "Active OAM in Geneve network uses an IP encapsulation", lacking the context of the Management VNI case. >>>> In Section 2.2, it says "The UDP source port can be used to provide entropy...", I don't think so. >>>> In Section 2.2, it says >>>> " Destination IP: IP address MUST NOT be of one of tenant's IP addresses. The IP address MUST be set to the loopback address 127.0.0.1/32 for IPv4, or the loopback address ::1/128 for IPv6 [RFC4291]." >>>> Now that "the IP address MUST be set to the loopback address", why does it need to say "IP address MUST NOT be of one of tenant's IP addresses"? >>>> >>>> >>>>> In section 1, the definition of VAP is introduced, and the only use of >>>>>> it is within section 2.2, it says "Source IP: IP address of the originating >>>>>> VAP". >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm a bit confused, to my understanding the VAP is irrelevant to the >>>>>> test on Management VNI, the Source IP should be set to the IP address of >>>>>> the originating NVE but not the originating VAP. >>>>>> >>>>> GIM>> Thank you for pointing that out to me. I removed the references >>>>> to VAP in the document and updated the text accordingly. >>>>> >>>>> [XM]>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In section 2.1, it says "The Management VNI SHOULD be terminated on >>>>>> the tenant-facing side of the Geneve encap/decap functionality, not the >>>>>> DC-network-facing side (per definitions in Section 4 of [RFC8014]) so that >>>>>> Geneve encap/decap functionality is included in its scope." >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure this statement is accurate. The Management VNI is a >>>>>> specific VNI not really deployed at the tenant-facing side, so it seems >>>>>> impossible to be terminated on the tenent-facing side. >>>>>> >>>>> GIM>> You are right. The Management VNI is a logical construct and, as >>>>> such, where it is terminated is also a logical entity. By pointing out >>>>> where the termination of the Management VNI happens, the document provides >>>>> useful information to an implementer. That information is important to >>>>> ensure that Geneve encap/decap functionality is exercised by an active OAM. >>>>> >>>>> [XM]>>> OK. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In section 1, it says "IP encapsulation conforms to these requirements >>>>>> and is a suitable encapsulation of active OAM protocols in a Geneve overlay >>>>>> network." >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure this statement is comprehensive. For the first case >>>>>> (Management VNI) discussed in section 2.1, I agree that IP encapsulation is >>>>>> enough, but for the second case, Ethernet encapsulation is also needed, >>>>>> which is clearly specified in draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve. >>>>>> >>>>> GIM>> I agree that the IP encapsulation using the Management VNI >>>>> addresses the first of two scenarios analyzed in Section 2.1. But I don't >>>>> think that it does not conform to the requirements listed in Section 2. >>>>> Could you help me by identifying which of five requirements cannot be >>>>> fulfilled by the IP encapsulation using the Management VNI? >>>>> >>>>> [XM]>>> REQ#1. As you indicated above, Management VNI is a logical >>>>> construct, not the VNI really deployed at the NVE, and considering that the Ethernet >>>>> over Geneve encap is the most popular one, I don't think a strict >>>>> fate sharing can be fulfilled by the IP encapsulation using the Management >>>>> VNI. >>>>> >>>> GIM2>> By using the Management VNI, in my opinion, we ensure the fate >>>> sharing of an active Geneve OAM with Geneve overlay service. I agree that >>>> the Management VNI may not be the most useful method to monitor an Ethernet >>>> service over the Geneve tunnel. I think that is clear from the text of the >>>> document. >>>> >>>> [XM-2]>>> OK, it's up to you. I reserve my suggestion to change the >>>> quoted text. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> In section 2.1, it says "The second case requires that a test packet >>>>>> be transmitted using the VNI value for the traffic that is encountering >>>>>> problems and the test packet is experiences network treatment as the >>>>>> tenant's packets." >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure this statement is accurate, "that is encountering >>>>>> problems" seems applicable to ICMP Ping but not applicable to BFD, because >>>>>> BFD itself is used to detect traffic problems. >>>>>> >>>>> GIM>> I think that the goal of BFD is well described in the Abstract >>>>> of RFC 5880: >>>>> This document describes a protocol intended to detect faults in the >>>>> bidirectional path between two forwarding engines, including >>>>> interfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding >>>>> engines themselves, with potentially very low latency. >>>>> >>>>> From this definition I conclude that BFD detects faults, i.e., >>>>> problems in the elements listed in the Abstract. Would you agree? >>>>> >>>>> [XM]>>> Let me elaborate a bit more. This sentence in Section 2.1 >>>>> implies that in the second case a test packet is transmitted only when the >>>>> traffic is encountering problems, IMHO that's not the case, take BFD as an >>>>> example, in the second case the BFD Control packets should be transmitted >>>>> from the beginning, but not after detecting some traffic problems. >>>>> >>>> GIM2>> Thank you for helping me to understand your concern. I hope I >>>> get it now. Would the following update make the message unambiguous and >>>> acceptable: >>>> OLD TEXT: >>>> The second case requires that a test packet be transmitted using the >>>> VNI value for the traffic that is encountering problems and the test >>>> packet experiences network treatment as the tenant's packets. Detail >>>> of that use case are outside the scope of this specification. >>>> NEW TEXT: >>>> >>>> [XM-2]>>> I don't know what's wrong, but it seems your NEW TEXT >>>> disappeared. The good thing is that I can see it from your attached Diff >>>> file, and that's fine to me. At the same time, I propose to change the text >>>> in Section 2.1 as below. >>>> >>>> OLD TEXT >>>> >>>> In the first case, a communication problem between Network Virtualization Edge (NVE) device A and NVE C was observed. The underlay, e.g., IP network, forwarding is working well but the Geneve connection is unstable for all tenants of NVE A and NVE C. Troubleshooting and localization of the problem can be done irrespective of the VNI value. >>>> NEW TEXT >>>> In the first case, a communication problem between Network Virtualization Edge (NVE) device A and NVE C *exists*. The underlay, e.g., IP network, forwarding is working well but the Geneve connection is unstable for all tenants of NVE A and NVE C. *Detection,* troubleshooting and localization of the problem can be done irrespective of the VNI value. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Xiao Min >>>> >>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Xiao Min >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> BTW, "the test packet is experiences network treatment" has nit. >>>>>> >>>>> GIM>> Thank you for catching it. Fixed. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Xiao Min >>>>>> Original >>>>>> *From: *GregMirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> >>>>>> *To: *肖敏10093570; >>>>>> *Cc: *aldrin.ietf@gmail.com <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>;nvo3@ietf.org < >>>>>> nvo3@ietf.org>;nvo3-chairs@ietf.org <nvo3-chairs@ietf.org>; >>>>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org < >>>>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org>; >>>>>> *Date: *2023年08月07日 06:12 >>>>>> *Subject: **Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for >>>>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07* >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> nvo3 mailing list >>>>>> nvo3@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Xiao Min, >>>>>> thank you for your suggestions. I've updated the draft to address >>>>>> your concern. Please let me know if you agree with the changes highlighted >>>>>> in the attached diff (the working version also includes updates that >>>>>> address the editorial updates suggested by Donald Eastlake). >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Greg >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 1:12 AM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I support progressing this document to publication. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At the same time, I strongly suggest the authors to rethink about >>>>>>> the scope of this document. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This document introduces two cases of using active OAM protocols for >>>>>>> Geneve, the first case is to use the Management VNI, and the second case is >>>>>>> to use the VNIs really deployed in the NVE, that's fine to me. However, >>>>>>> it's said that the OAM encapsulation defined in Section 2.2 can be used for >>>>>>> both cases, I don't think so. As specified in draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve, >>>>>>> in order to use the VNIs really deployed, VAP based OAM solution is >>>>>>> necessary, i.e., the MAC/IP address of VAP must be used as long as it's >>>>>>> available, and then the VNI can be identified through VAP-to-VNI mapping. >>>>>>> Besides, for the second case, both Ethernet over Geneve encap and IP over >>>>>>> Geneve encap are needed. So with that said, the OAM encap defined in >>>>>>> Section 2.2 can be slightly tweaked to be applicable to the first case >>>>>>> only, and the OAM encap for the second case can be made outside the scope >>>>>>> of this document. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Xiao Min >>>>>>> Original >>>>>>> *From: *SamAldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com> >>>>>>> *To: *NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>;nvo3-chairs@ietf.org < >>>>>>> nvo3-chairs@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org < >>>>>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org>; >>>>>>> *Date: *2023年06月28日 14:27 >>>>>>> *Subject: **[nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for >>>>>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07* >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> nvo3 mailing list >>>>>>> nvo3@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This email begins a two-week working group last call for >>>>>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam/ >>>>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve/>). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please review the draft and post any comments to the NVO3 working >>>>>>> group list. If you have read the latest version of the draft but have no >>>>>>> comments and believe it is ready for publication as an informational RFC, >>>>>>> please also indicate so to the WG email list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that >>>>>>> applies to this document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in >>>>>>> compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more >>>>>>> details). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document, >>>>>>> please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of >>>>>>> any relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers >>>>>>> from all the Authors and Contributors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Currently there are no IPR disclosures against this document. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please >>>>>>> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been >>>>>>> disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This poll will run until Friday 12th July 2023. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sam and Matthew >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
- [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for d… Sam Aldrin
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Matthew Bocci (Nokia)
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Mach Chen
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Sam Aldrin
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Santosh P K
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Sami Boutros
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Black, David
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Santosh P K
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky