Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Mon, 01 July 2019 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@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 50EDA120169; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 13:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 viS1oiB60-Pv; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 13:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E01CB1200F7; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 13:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dresden.attlocal.net (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A9B481E2D8; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 16:42:54 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_96896C42-0EC6-42BA-9D1A-C28C79D05383"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <0B9FDA17-7F13-4FEC-AE97-40BC9D72C87B@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 16:41:30 -0400
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan.all@ietf.org>, Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>, IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <6711F7AE-04CE-48C2-BA39-748936D9CB70@pfrc.org>
References: <155933149484.6565.7386019489022348116@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmXu-F0cWDkBydE_aJaVpUv=k1otqUCc7NdRW4pnBK3tgA@mail.gmail.com> <14822B96-D3C6-495E-8661-198068F72ABA@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmUMbW=B3FNmqiQNmMLM27f9G+MeRL5MrAnCd04EP3vmrQ@mail.gmail.com> <8237FE8D-937E-4BCB-B1A3-89C2B3CDC51C@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmXAQ1esWKa8C6cgnn93YTyTh=JFUt187TS56bNND1OJOA@mail.gmail.com> <0B9FDA17-7F13-4FEC-AE97-40BC9D72C87B@cisco.com>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/2MIAy6QJiBi-Ho1oLL2uqoZzHyg>
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: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 20:41:33 -0000

Carlos,


> On Jun 19, 2019, at 10:09 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com>; wrote:
> 
>> 
>> This packet loop may not be practical for several encapsulations and thus is
>> out of scope for such encapsulations.  Whether this is practical for vxlan
>> today, or in the presence of future extensions to vxlan is left out of scope
>> for the core proposal.  
> 
> The question remains: for VXLAN encapsulation, this is like a single hop as far as BFD is concerned (single hop VXLAN tunnel).
> 
> Since RFC 5881 defines Echo for single hop, can you please elaborate (in the document) why is out of scope or how it can work?


While my suspicion was that vxlan was quite happy to be able to do BFD Echo in the presence of appropriate forwarding machinery, it's still okay for this document to specify only async mode BFD in the vxlan environment.

If you think it's practical to describe such an environment in a reasonable amount of text in the base proposal, it could be incorporated in that document.

-- Jeff