Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07

[[e-mail]]

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.


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.


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.


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.


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. BTW, "the test packet is experiences network treatment" has nit.






Best Regards,


Xiao Min



Original



From: GregMirsky <[e-mail]>
To: 肖敏10093570;
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
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
[e-mail]
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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
To: NVO3 <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
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
[e-mail]
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/).


 


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