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

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 29 October 2019 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E605120125; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Krcriy_DTLGi; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 13:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39FCE12006D; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 13:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 891E71E2D3; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:56:52 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:56:52 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>
Cc: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>, Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "T. Sridhar" <tsridhar@vmware.com>, xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Subject: Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
Message-ID: <20191029205651.GA10145@pfrc.org>
References: <CA+-tSzyHgspKBfLWZ3C69EBb+-k-POqJ7vG7VoN=g077+qzGBA@mail.gmail.com> <1571795542.10436.5@smtp.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXkyQMumeCDxM6OSzdn=DCL=aeyQ+tJmUiyEg0VZuUpRg@mail.gmail.com> <1571798869.2855.1@smtp.gmail.com> <CACi9rduyvhweJd_aNx6miiUGyu-nCeqnNHGbPjyCfswHx1RD5A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXLBLARxhA4MUvD6DE8vvY1oDP0opkxDqiPA4zYw9Jpug@mail.gmail.com> <1571860470.2855.11@smtp.gmail.com> <CACi9rdtwiuH2VjuUkzeg3+PhwcFMSqFepbcM0tgmRxSbcR3AQQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+-tSzyi=uDdqSDq4u7kytAucX136mO2XtPtR=DG+KKAC5PjCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACi9rdsLYuf9_v-uNZ8SLW+sif+O9wNjjHvNu2xQrTuWxJfyOA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACi9rdsLYuf9_v-uNZ8SLW+sif+O9wNjjHvNu2xQrTuWxJfyOA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/183UbOjg8DEraHXikPgu49XOZAc>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 13:54:10 -0700
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 20:53:20 -0000

Santosh,

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:24:06PM +0530, Santosh P K wrote:
> "As per section 4 inner destination IP address MAY be set to 127/8 address.
> There could be firewall configured on VTEP to block 127/8 address range if
> set as destination IP in inner IP header. It is recommended to allow 127/8
> range address through firewall only if inner IP header's destination IP is
> set to 127/8 IP address."

Would it be reasonable to suggest "SHOULD be set"?

Our motivation in this section is to offer what is likely to be a reasonable
default, without providing restriction from something more amenable to some
provider's requirement.

Similarly, based on this text, we'll get asked about "recommended" vs.
"RECOMMENDED".  What level of strength do you think we should have here?


-- Jeff