Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08.txt
Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Mon, 04 November 2019 19:43 UTC
Return-Path: <ghanwani@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 8AEAA120047; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 11:43:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.139
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.139 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 ohrXih8vMnCp; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 11:43:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-f52.google.com (mail-ua1-f52.google.com [209.85.222.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1308120025; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 11:43:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-f52.google.com with SMTP id k11so2695298ual.10; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 11:43:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SJsho/7i/OkNWjsGpolpWsIgJ7EJI14ZRavszSWDmsg=; b=a/rXzp6PLjzo1iyxaSjJTteX/Er10Gzfl8XV4jE7+4k7IC08OCouWt8U8fglaubBfM 2OpOW0UqlPcbQXYLnR4UKnBV4co58YqGyajAxKy5efbcMAtZiy+xnPPAo/dSfjG6UkWm UVdJuJbf6XZ049w+raTgNx1mIBGIonhsS+7HfEXGb/aLB6+TUNnwVu80TmKmrBrdYM1g 91P77XhwDyMg9D3ajYi/yDhTfaJENXxvHQGWxhA30UnTCSh3ZNA6WGpqZUa7S/6ZF+C/ aQHf4d6/zNl8bDnc8SM1v+XToT/mp4UUBx5/nilW/8ntIPVIZ3VWQBvQH7xOAmWXbwnY o2NQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUJF64R8bneOfgbDE63qCxVFJ5dBU8WrOf8doqKHOKceM11SUoj JDamji0W+y558KAaPY47v1VM2Mlj3zlEopzNvM0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx9QOXMViH67wRDOFwiCbWCa7uC1vy3QFBC7ovFNzpgHYo5y6zzsBWpBXaXgJ1HS4jj0UVj2qjgZeM7Bfw4jbc=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:4ea9:: with SMTP id l41mr12662184uah.76.1572896598573; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 11:43:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157263030423.31830.4277364795812171214.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmUn2zSME51_rDW+y-GdWTmOXQiV7BKkRbNwcy12q8ZjxA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+-tSzxvknwYwvh-s-UK_C7YoF04eiFhyBvVxoNmT=52=EUnWw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmU0FViBV8TrwpLN7hUVMkbp9h4E-N048T4BM7a=7F6MdA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+-tSzxNHF0pRq1-7sPz4eWqCVVpf52jDhhqq0iNFu02Eso1pQ@mail.gmail.com> <c5ff1b1f-4b07-9be5-0519-de3849ea5ce8@joelhalpern.com> <CA+-tSzw4TwmC_qxBX8Q4inWswMTS2nBmSVCJVcCN9PRpDa-ghw@mail.gmail.com> <CACi9rdvzrDXO=stf=fiiEOk_en=nTEvBhXYk33gdyjmRPJes-w@mail.gmail.com> <CA+-tSzy1zyrozrB17OmcG67QauU6Z5V3T0a-a9B9zQnFLjvnYg@mail.gmail.com> <1572888977.25948.5@smtp.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1572888977.25948.5@smtp.gmail.com>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 11:43:06 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzx55UFxjCs7UROeYT9R+bp48pbC3nBMGPOor8LBnacabg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com>
Cc: Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000006ca7805968a87fd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/iR-KJqW2YY1sKR6Bij4graQDrcs>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08.txt
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 19:43:23 -0000
Dinesh, The multicast MAC was mentioned by me (because I incorrectly assumed that is what the original proposal was), hence Santosh's question. Sorry for the confusion. Anoop On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:36 AM Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't suggest the use of a multicast MAC, any MAC would be fine in the > management VNI since there can be no tenant VMs on a management VNI. I was > recommending specifying a unicast MAC. > > Santosh, as I mentioned to Joel, I don't want to add additional forwarding > requirements--such as VNI-specific behavior--in VXLAN. The existing > mechanism is sufficient for the case we're discussing here. Just pick a MAC > in management VNI for the sake of configuration simplicity. > > Dinesh > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 8:30 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> > wrote: > > Hi Santosh, > > I'm not aware of any implementation that uses a multicast MAC for this. > The closest thing that I'm aware of that helps alleviate the need for > knowing the MAC of the remote VTEP is what's done in open vswitch: > http://www.openvswitch.org/support/dist-docs/vtep.5.html > > *b**f**d**_**c**o**n**f**i**g**_**r**e**m**o**t**e* *:* *b**f**d**_**d**s**t**_**m**a**c*: optional string > Set to an Ethernet address in the form *x**x*:*x**x*:*x**x*:*x**x*:*x**x*:*x**x* to set > the destination MAC to be used for transmitted BFD packets. The > default is *0**0**:**2**3**:**2**0**:**0**0**:**0**0**:**0**1*. > > That OUI belongs to Nicira/VMware. An IANA assigned unicast MAC would be > the equivalent. > > Anoop > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 5:14 AM Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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 >>> >>
- [nvo3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ie… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Santosh P K
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Santosh P K
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Santosh P K
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-iet… Anoop Ghanwani