Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08.txt
Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Wed, 06 November 2019 01:38 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 ED42D120041; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 17:38:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.307
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.082, 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] 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 HfOu4R1Gl7Jz; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 17:38:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk1-f179.google.com (mail-vk1-f179.google.com [209.85.221.179]) (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 80206120274; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 17:38:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk1-f179.google.com with SMTP id k24so2308498vko.7; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 17:38:27 -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=kJA6xGiqK6zh9TCMEe9fTJ0HMtODq3AOQtFSXo8Um28=; b=o+25wtN4SGUtOKcw1gLrt7yw0w7Fi99jeHa2mXeBVF2Uuw/cPU16z9f7P5tgARBcmJ cf5OWMG77VuzeFzYmq+luY7JuMbJFJN8Z5HaR3XfckwtPFBmL7Tew1MACwTHaLYjLjOu IQiqwDuUlu+yz0vbrx7KDqiClify0hAHWjIGHGD0klNDzOa0fBmsFFRZc309cZuYDrAE kNhat9CPZP5OIYD/sPQ2LwBZDd7GQvf8fYIR4DC5aS9yPsQTfKPAvSDROiptKuKD7JXg MzfTxWoLTh7YiAdJRQawiNRrAm5OguTPXOoucx4J6RxcQBpDBXdpPlu5GyAiFDvNHert 2L3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVsPqpIH4/rdgslZQTxpBQLrSOBYhdPPKwijZmdyI/OQYBcETOx wyZu+df4+MUXEPWkgR318D6rBwmJyidMCzSxZIo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxOaVOXij7ikxPjTiMnB8sG9t8YQ+jYu/GCKlIAh28+C4Kpb2lqaNejv4g/yJVZ2vrpZeGDIKFr/W4wMRiB3Is=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:8dc5:: with SMTP id p188mr135858vkd.13.1573004306455; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 17:38:26 -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> <CA+RyBmX3Y_dBih9_E=n2_qPkLHHFqWNN1OtNMYvsEataebyoSQ@mail.gmail.com> <1573000145.25948.19@smtp.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1573000145.25948.19@smtp.gmail.com>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 17:38:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzz3vD9OzrM6m-WETVzHc=+1v30skYfx4_dTtGybzZiFEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000eaa2d80596a39ab0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/nU9OfjI-vQFWdm5Girdet98DYgc>
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 01:38:58 -0000
Greg, What is the resistance to getting an address assigned by IANA? (Apologies if I missed the discussion.) Also not sure about the value of the statement >> An implementation MAY use VNI number 1 as the default value for the Management VNI. >> What prompted this, and if we need to recommend a value, why not 0? Thanks, Anoop On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 4:29 PM Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com> wrote: > I understand Greg. Maybe suggest a value, rather than recommend it? Its > just to reduce configuration. The key parts are to not change the existing > VXLAN forwarding behavior and ensure that BFD between VTEPs doesn't leak to > tenants (which typically don't exist in case of a management VNI). > > Dinesh > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:24 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Dinesh, > I agree that using a particular MAC over the Management VNI will minimize > configuration and thus reduce the operator's headache. I'm concerned that > adding RECOMMENDATION to use the specific MAC address over the Management > VNI comes very close to requesting the assignment of the MAC for the > Management VNI. > > Regards, > Greg > > 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