Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 30 October 2019 02:09 UTC
Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
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 9AA9C1200C3; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 MmTY0un9BfbW; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20E281200A3; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 472sMJ0SCtzrkH5; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1572401340; bh=+fCbZxdb2p5NILBKz/TfsrbXn1hvRTfpPaLi6ww+sfg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=dGogJjbDAraf8x0BNwnYnu2jJkXLpwmUBht7quQSXbxZW7YouZ9W8tbtUcb6P0N/U wq/IkPeIGwTNcHBXAm9Ic0mDH6bTx88VvEmmVQ8g175kd4qNoYh41GaDPtjVB4Z8my Ud4S1wQCydwJnYka1knnwVdl2MDfoJ1DxkK7WC2A=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 472sMF1j66zFq5Z; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
To: Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com>
Cc: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>, Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, 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
References: <CACi9rdu8PKsLW_Pq4ww5DEwLL8Bs6Hq1Je_jmAjES4LKBuE8MQ@mail.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> <88a1320e-093a-a101-d8a6-6ae6d7648466@joelhalpern.com> <CA+-tSzxCpLOmhpBXP1k5vLY20qA5db9nbq4qEiH00jo=EH+w8g@mail.gmail.com> <d7b25f3a-5f1e-30da-8a41-0d11e3c2d04c@joelhalpern.com> <CA+-tSzzBfp9Wy8KO6MbxFNXZBhC3bL7u92VwqJTA82WrwGUAgg@mail.gmail.com> <c773cd4f-320c-fb15-3b7b-d0016b7d5978@joelhalpern.com> <CA+-tSzxUs9PGv+y1PBquaAhuq4wK_=TkR+b_ET6j7OBHf4Mq7Q@mail.gmail.com> <97bdb8b4-b334-53fb-05a6-2d1fc8684ad3@joelhalpern.com> <CA+-tSzw76E0AM2AJR=2GQsXJ3MtFUtsug7KoGQzAP-=Ds8u7Fg@mail.gmail.com> <aa853b8e-7ff4-a2d9-9b66-f9c22823ac9d@joelhalpern.com> <1572400778.28051.7@smtp.gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <14104891-8e3e-ba70-4744-4e9f6d52561a@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 22:08:55 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1572400778.28051.7@smtp.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/5VNbqiwKIGpzuc31c1RUbxizCI0>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 04:22:38 -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: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 02:09:04 -0000
I presume that most silicon implementations of VxLAN VTEPs do not have any logic for trapping out BFD packets under any circumstances. While some may have been built anticipating this draft, we have to assume that many will not be able to support this. So it goes when you add features to a protocol. I can live with requrieing 127/8, or requiring ignoring the IP destination address. I do think we should be clear about what is going in the field (since BFD requires it), and how it is to be processed. Yours, Joel On 10/29/2019 9:59 PM, Dinesh Dutt wrote: > I suspect silicon implementations will have a problem with saying that > they can be set to anything and MUST be ignored on reception. Your logic > is sound, it's just that I fear you'll break many existing > implementations. I recommend sticking with the 127/8 address for this case. > > Dinesh > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 9:15 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> > wrote: >> In all the discussion about what VNI to use and multiple VNI support, >> I lsot track. Sorry. Still, the earlier documents did not specify the >> IP to use. That does NOT mean that we are required in later revisions >> of the document to allow anything the client wants. Having said that, >> we could add text saying that since the IP address in the BFD request >> in VNI 0 is effectively meaningless, it can be set to any value on >> transmission and must be ignored on reception. As far as I can tell, >> it is definitional that the VtEP does not have any assigned IP address >> for VNI 0, so we can't expect that address. Yours, Joel On 10/29/2019 >> 11:10 AM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: >> >> Hi Joel, Yes, existing implementations use VNI 0 for BFD over >> VXLAN. Here are a couple of references: >> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/sdn-ovsdb-bfd-nsx.html >> >> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/nexus-9000-series-switches/white-paper-c11-740091.html#_Toc18013665 >> I guess this document has been evolving and I have not kept up >> with it. The version I had reviewed and commented on originally >> allowed for VNI 0. The -04 version of the draft has this: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-04#section-7 What >> version are you referring to? Thanks, Anoop On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 >> at 12:55 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> wrote: >> You are saying that there are existing implementations using VNI 0 >> for this? Given that previous versions of the spec explicitly >> disallowed VNI 0, I am having trouble with your objecting that a >> spec for how to run over VNI 0 breask existing implementations. >> Note that when there is a good technical reason, the IETF does >> change Internet Drafts in ways that break early implementations. >> That is the price of standardization. Yours, Joel On 10/28/2019 >> 2:30 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: > Hi Joel, > > Writing the spec in >> that way would make the current, inter-operable > implementation >> of multiple vendors non-compliant with the spec. > > Thanks, > >> Anoop > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 11:07 AM Joel M. Halpern >> <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>> wrote: > > I assumed this was >> only for the case where a tenant VNI was being used. > > For >> the 0 VNI (which is what I prefer), always (MUST) use the loopback >> > address. There are no addresses assigned to the VTEP in >> that space. > There is no IRB in that space. > > Yours, > >> Joel > > On 10/28/2019 1:58 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: > >> > Joel, > > > > Are we going to qualify this by VNI? >> There's a bunch of > implementations > > out there that >> don't use a tenant IP or a loopback with VNI 0--they > > >> simply repeat the underlay IP in the inner IPDA. > > > > >> Thanks, > > Anoop > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at >> 10:46 AM Joel M. Halpern > <jmh@joelhalpern.com >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> > > >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>> wrote: >> > > > > I can live with saying that you SHOULD use >> loopback, and MAY > instead > > use > > an >> IP address in the customer space known to be owned by the VTEP > >> > device > > when such exists. > > > > >> Yours, > > Joel > > > > On 10/28/2019 >> 1:32 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: > > > Hi Joel, > > >> > > > > Perhaps we need to say use of an address >> owned by the device > > containing > > > the >> VTEP. > > > > > > Or are you suggesting that >> the use of the loopback address > space > > is a >> MUST? > > > > > > Anoop > > > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:22 AM Joel M. Halpern > >> > <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>> > > > >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> > >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>>> >> wrote: > > > > > > There is something I am >> missing in your assumption > about IRB. > > > > >> > > As I understand VxLAN, the VTEP is under the control >> > of the > > operator. > > > As such, >> it is a pure bridge. If you run IRB behind > it, that > >> > is fine. > > > Yes, an operator may offer >> IRB. But as I understand it, > > conceptually, > > >> > in terms of the VxLAN architecture the IRB is an entity >> > > behind the > > > VTEP, > > > >> not part of the VTEP. > > > > > > >> Yours, > > > Joel > > > > > > >> On 10/28/2019 12:23 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: > > > >> > Santosh, > > > > > > > > Does >> it have to be a MUST? What if I am running > IRB and there > >> > > are IP > > > > addresses per VNI >> assigned to the VTEPs? Why can the > > operator not > >> > > > choose to use those? > > > > > >> > > > Anoop > > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 7:51 AM Santosh P K > > > >> > <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> > > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>> > > > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> > > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>>> > > > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> > > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>> > > > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> > > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>>>>> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > Dinesh, Anoop et all, > > >> > > Lets us know if this text works for 127/8 > >> > address range? > > > > > > > >> > [proposed text for firewall] > > > > > >> > > > "As per section 4 inner destination IP address >> > MUST be > > set to > > > 127/8 > >> > > > address. There may 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 > >> > > > 127/8 IP address is set as destination address >> > in inner IP > > > header." > > > >> > > > > > > > > > In section 4 >> we are talking about using 127/8 > and not > > really >> > > > giving > > > > reason why. >> I think we should have text as RFC 5884 > > has mentioned >> > > > > with below text. > > > > >> > > > > [From RFC 5884] > > > > >> "The motivation for using the address range > 127/8 is > >> > the same as > > > > specified in >> Section 2.1 of [RFC4379] > > > > >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4379#section-2.1>. > > >> This is an > > > > exception to the behavior >> defined in [RFC1122 > > > > >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122>]." > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Thanks > > > > Santosh P K > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 1:24 AM Dinesh Dutt > >> > <didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com>> > <mailto:didutt@gmail.com >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com>>> > > > >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com>> > >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com>>>> > > >> > > <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> >> > <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com>> >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com>>> > > >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com>> > >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > Looks good to >> me Greg. I see that the text > around > > the use > >> > > of the > > > > inner IP >> address as also quite acceptable. Will > > you add any > >> > > > words about the firewall? > > >> > > > > > > Dinesh > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 8:36 >> PM, Greg Mirsky > > > > >> <gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> > <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> > > >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> > >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> > >> > <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>>> > > > >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> > >> > <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> > >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>>>>> >> wrote: > > > >> Hi Dinesh, et al., > >> > > >> please check the updated version that > >> removed the > > > reference to > > > >> >> Hypervisor in the text and Figure 1. > > > >> >> > > > >> Regards, > > > >> >> Greg > > > >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:47 AM Santosh P K > > >> > >> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> > > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>> > > > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> > > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>>> > > > >> >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> > > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>> > > > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> > > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com >> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>>>>> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> Dinesh, > > >> > >> Please see my inline comments [SPK] > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >> - In section 3, there's a sentence > that >> > > is: "BFD > > > >> >> packets intended for a Hypervisor > VTEP MUST > > >> > NOT..". I > > > >> recommend >> getting rid of the word > > "Hypervisor" ashe > > >> > >> logic applies to any VTEP. > > >> > >> > > > >> [SPK] Thanks for >> comments. We will > change this. > > > >> > >> > > >> - You already explained the > >> precedence of > > the use of > > > >> >> 127/8 address in the inner header in > > >> MPLS. I have no > > > >> specific >> comments in that area. I have > > only two > > >> > >> questions: > > > >> >> - Has anybody verified that the > use of > >> > 127/8 > > > >> address (and >> the right MAC) works with > > existing > > > >> >> implementations, including the silicon > >> > ones? If this > > > >> >> doesn't work there, is it worth > adding the > > > >> possibilit > > > >> y of another >> address, one that is > owned > > by the > > >> > VTEP node? > > > >> > > > >> >> - Do we know if Firewalls stop > such VXLAN >> > > > packets? > > > >> >> I ask this because VXLAN has an IP > header > > >> and I > > > don't > > > >> >> know if firewalls stop packets > with 127/8 > > >> in the > > > inner > > > >> >> header. If not, is it worth adding a > > sentence >> to say > > > >> that firewalls >> allow such > packets? The > > use of a > > >> > >> non-127/8 address may alleviate > >> this case > > as well. > > > >> > > >> > >> [SPK] I think we may need to add the >> text > > about firewall > > > >> >> as some checks in firewall will be > there if > > >> they are not > > > >> already using >> MPLS OAM which has inner IP > > header with > > >> > >> 127/8 address range. > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> The rest of the draft looks good > to me, > > > >> >> > > > >> Dinesh > > >> > >> > > > >> On Wed, Oct 23, >> 2019 at 7:58 AM, > Greg Mirsky > > > >> >> <gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> > <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> > > >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> > >> > > <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> > <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> > <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>>> > > >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> > >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> > >> > > <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> > <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> > <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>>>>> > > > >> >> wrote: > > > >>> Hi >> Dinesh, > > > >>> I greatly >> appreciate your comments. > > Please heave a > > >> > >>> look at the attached copy of the > >> working > > > version and > > > >>> >> its diff to -07 (latest in the > datatracker). >> > > > >>> > > > >>> >> Regards, > > > >>> Greg > > >> > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, >> Oct 22, 2019 at 9:52 PM > Dinesh Dutt > > > >> >>> <didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> > <mailto:didutt@gmail.com >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com>> > > <mailto:didutt@gmail.com >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com>>> > <mailto:didutt@gmail.com >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com>> > > <mailto:didutt@gmail.com >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com>>>> > > > >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com>> > >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com>>> > > >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com>> > >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com> >> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <mailto:didutt@gmail.com>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > >>> > > > >>> >> I have the same feeling as Anoop. > > Greg, can you > >> > > >>> please point me to the >> latest > draft > > so that > > > I can >> > > > >>> quickly glance >> through it to be > > doubly sure, > > > >> >>> > > > >>> Dinesh > > >> > >>> > > > >>> On >> Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 4:35 AM, > > Anoop Ghanwani > >> > > >>> <anoop@alumni.duke.edu >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> > >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> > >> > <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>> > > > >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> > >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> > >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>>> >> > > > >>> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> > <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> > > >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>> > >> > > <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> > <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> > > >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> > >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>>>>> >> wrote: > > > >>>> Greg, > >> > > >>>> > > > >>>> I >> think the draft is fine as is. > > > >>>> > > >> > >>>> I discussion with Xiao Min was >> > > about #3 and I > > > >>>> >> see that as unnecessary until we > > have a draft >> > > > >>>> that explains why >> that is > needed in the > > > context > > >> > >>>> of the NVO3 architecture. > >> > > >>>> > > > >>>> >> Anoop > > > >>>> > > > >>>> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:17 AM > > Greg >> Mirsky > > > >>>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> > >> > <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> > > > >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>>> >> > > > >>>> > <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> > > >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> > >> > > <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> > <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> > > >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>>>>> >> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> >> Hi Anoop, et al., > > > >>>> >> I agree with your > understanding > > >> of what is > > > >>>> >> being defined in the current > > version > > >> > of the > > > >>>> BFD >> over VxLAN > specification. > > But, as I > > >> > >>>> understand, the WG is > >> > discussing the scope > > > >>>> >> before the WGLC is closed. I > > believe there >> > > > >>>> are three >> options: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> >> 1. single BFD session > between > > >> two VTEPs > > > >>>> 2. >> single BFD session > per VNI > > between > > >> > two VTEPs > > > >>>> >> 3. multiple BFD > sessions per > > VNI between > >> > > >>>> two VTEPs > >> > > >>>> > > > >>>> >> The current text > reflects #2. Is WG > > > >> accepts > > > >>>> this >> scope? If not, which > > option WG would > > > >> >>>> accept? > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> Regards, > >> > > >>>> Greg > > > >> >>>> > > > >>>> On Tue, >> Oct 22, 2019 at > 2:09 PM > > Anoop > > > >> >>>> Ghanwani > >> <anoop@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> > > >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>> > >> > > <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> > <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> > <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>>> > > > >>>> > >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> > >> > <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>> > > > >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> > >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> > >> > <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu> > <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu >> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>>>>> wrote: > > > >> >>>> > > > >>>> I >> concur with Joel's > assessment > > > with the >> > > > >>>> following > >> clarifications. > > > >>>> > > > >> >>>> The current document > is >> already > > > capable > > > >>>> >> of monitoring > multiple VNIs > > >> > between VTEPs. > > > >>>> > > >> > >>>> The issue under > >> discussion > > was how > > > do we > >> > > >>>> use BFD to monitor >> > multiple > > VAPs that > > > >>>> >> use the same VNI > between a > >> > pair of > > > >>>> >> VTEPs. The use case for > > this is not > > >> > >>>> clear to me, as from my > >> > understanding, > > > >>>> >> we cannot have a > situation with > > >> > multiple > > > >>>> >> VAPs using the same > > VNI--there is 1:1 > > >> > >>>> mapping between VAP > >> and VNI. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> >> Anoop > > > >>>> > > >> > >>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 > >> at 6:06 AM > > > Joel M. > > > >> >>>> Halpern > > >> <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>> > > > >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> > >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> > >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>> > >> > > >>>> > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> > > >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>> > >> > > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>>>> > > wrote: > > >> > >>>> > > > >>>> >> From what I can > tell, > > there > > >> > are two > > > >>>> >> separate problems. > > > >>>> >> The document we > have is a > > > >> VTEP-VTEP > > > >>>> >> monitoring > document. > > There is no > > >> > >>>> need for that > >> document to > > > handle the > > > >> >>>> multiple VNI case. > > >> > >>>> If folks want a > >> > protocol for doing > > > >>>> >> BFD monitoring > of things > > >> > behind the > > > >>>> >> VTEPs (multiple > VNIs), > > then do > >> > > that > > > >>>> >> as a separate > > document. The > > >> > >>>> encoding will be > >> a tenant > > > encoding, > > > >>>> >> and thus > sesparate from > >> > what is > > > >>>> >> defined in this > document. > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> Yours, >> > > > >>>> Joel > >> > > >>>> > > > >>>> >> On 10/21/2019 > 5:07 PM, > > Jeffrey >> > > > Haas > > > >>>> >> wrote: > > > >>>> >> > Santosh and > others, > > > >> >>>> > > > > >>>> >> > On Thu, Oct > 03, 2019 at > >> > > 07:50:20PM > > > >>>> >> +0530, Santosh P > K wrote: > > >> > >>>> >> Thanks > >> for your > > > explanation. > > > >> >>>> This helps a lot. I > > >> would wait > > > for more > > > >> >>>> >> comments from > others >> > > to see if > > > >>>> >> this what we > need in this > > > >> draft to be > > > >>>> >> >> supported > based on > > that we can > >> > > >>>> provide >> appropriate > > sections > > > in the > >> > > >>>> draft. > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > >>>> > The threads on the >> > > list have > > > >>>> >> spidered to the > point > > where it >> is > > > >>>> >> challenging > > > >>>> >> > to follow what the > > current > > > >> status > > > >>>> >> of the draft is, > or should > > > be. :-) > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > >>>> > However, if I've >> > > followed things > > > >>>> >> properly, the > question > > >> below is > > > >>>> >> really the > > > >>>> >> > hinge point on > what our > > > >>>> >> encapsulation > for BFD > > >> over vxlan > > > >>>> >> should look like. > > > >>>> >> > Correct? > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > Essentially, > do we or > > do we not > >> > > >>>> require the >> > ability to > > permit > > > >>>> >> multiple BFD > > > >> >>>> > sessions between > > >> distinct VAPs? > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > If this is so, > do we > > have a > > >> > sense > > > >>>> >> as to how we should > > proceed? > > > >> >>>> > > > > >>>> >> > -- Jeff > > > >> >>>> > > > > >>>> >> > [context preserved > > >> below...] > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> >> Santosh P K > > > >>>> >> >> > > > >>>> >> >> On Wed, Sep > 25, 2019 > > at 8:10 AM > > >> > >>>> > <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn >> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> >> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>> > >> > <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> >> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>>> > >> > > <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn >> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> > <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn >> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn >> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> > <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn >> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>>>> > > > >>>> > >> > <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> >> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>> > >> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> >> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>>> > >> > > <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn >> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> > <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn >> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn >> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> > <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn >> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>>>>>> > > wrote: > > >> > >>>> >> > > > >> >>>> >>> Hi Santosh, > > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >>>> >>> > > > >> >>>> >>> With regard > to >> the > > question > > > >>>> >> whether we > should allow > > > >> multiple BFD > > > >>>> >> sessions > > > >>>> >> >>> for the same > VNI or > > not, > > >> > IMHO we > > > >>>> >> should allow it, > more > > > explanation >> as > > > >>>> >>> >> follows. > > > >>>> >> >>> > > > >>>> >>> >> Below is a > figure > > derived from > > > >> >>>> figure 2 of > RFC8014 >> (An > > > Architecture for > > > >> >>>> >>> Data-Center > Network >> > > > >>>> Virtualization > over Layer 3 > >> > > (NVO3)). > > > >>>> >> >>> > > > >>>> >> >>> > | > > > >>>> >> Data Center Network > > (IP) >> | > > > >>>> >> >>> > | > > > >>>> > > >> | > > > >>>> >>> >> > > > >>>> > > > >> +-----------------------------------------+ > > > >> >>>> >>> > > | > >> > > >>>> > | > > > >>>> >> >>> > > | > > >> > >>>> Tunnel Overlay > >> | > > > >>>> >> >>> > > > >>>> > +------------+---------+ > >> > > >>>> > +---------+------------+ > > >> > >>>> >>> | > >> > > >>>> > +----------+-------+ | > > >> | > > > >>>> > +-------+----------+ | >> > > > >>>> >>> > >> | | > > Overlay > > > >>>> >> Module | | > | | > > Overlay > >> > > >>>> Module | | >> > > > >>>> >>> >> | > > > >>>> > +---------+--------+ | >> > > | > > > >>>> > >> +---------+--------+ | > > > >>>> >> >>> | > > | > > >> > >>>> | | > >> | > > > | > > > >>>> >> >>> NVE1 | > > | > >> > > >>>> | | >> > | > > > | > > > >> >>>> NVE2 > > > >> >>>> >>> | > > >> > >>>> > +--------+-------+ | > > | > >> > > >>>> > +--------+-------+ | > > >> > >>>> >>> > | |VNI1 > >> > > VNI2 VNI1 > > > >>>> >> | | | | VNI1 > > VNI2 VNI1 > >> > > | | > > > >>>> >> >>> | > > > >>>> > >> +-+-----+----+---+ | > > | > > > >> >>>> > +-+-----+-----+--+ | > > > >>>> >> >>> > |VAP1| > > VAP2| >> | > > > >>>> VAP3 | >> > |VAP1| VAP2| > > > | VAP3| > > >> > >>>> >>> > > > >> >>>> > +----+-----+----+------+ > > > >>>> >> > +----+-----+-----+-----+ > > > >>>> >> >>> > > | | > > >> > | > > > >>>> | > > | >> | > > > >>>> >>> >> > > | | > > > | > > > >> >>>> | > > | | > > > >> >>>> >>> > > | | > >> > > | > > > >>>> | > >> > | | > > > >>>> >> >>> > > > >>>> > > > > >> -------+-----+----+-------------------+-----+-----+------- > >> > > >>>> >>> > > >> | | > > > | > > > >>>> >> Tenant | > > | | > > > >>>> >> >>> > TSI1 | > > >> TSI2| | > > > >>>> >> TSI3 > TSI1| TSI2| > > > |TSI3 > > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> +---+ +---+ > > > >>>> >> +---+ > +---+ > > +---+ > > > >> +---+ > > > >>>> >> >>> > > |TS1| |TS2| > > > >>>> >> |TS3| > |TS4| > > |TS5| > >> > > |TS6| > > > >>>> >> >>> > > +---+ +---+ > > > >> >>>> +---+ > +---+ > > >> +---+ > > > +---+ > > > >>>> >> >>> > > > >>>> >> >>> To my > > understanding, the >> BFD > > > >>>> >> sessions between > NVE1 > > and NVE2 are > > >> > >>>> actually > > >> > >>>> >>> initiated and > >> > terminated > > > at VAP > > > >> >>>> of NVE. > > > >> >>>> >>> > > > >> >>>> >>> If the > network >> operator > > > want to > > > >>>> >> set up one BFD > session > >> > between > > > VAP1 of > > > >> >>>> >>> NVE1 and VAP1of > > >> NVE2, at the > > > >>>> >> same time > another BFD > > session > > >> > >>>> between VAP3 of > >> > > >>>> >>> NVE1 >> and > VAP3 of NVE2, > > > although > > >> > >>>> the two BFD sessions >> > > are for > > > the same > > > >> >>>> >>> VNI1, I > believe >> it's > > > reasonable, > > > >>>> >> so that's why I > think we > >> > > should allow it > > > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> >>>> nvo3 mailing list > >> > > >>>> nvo3@ietf.org <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org> >> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org >> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>> > <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org >> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org >> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>>> > > <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org >> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org >> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>> > <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org >> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org >> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>>>> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org >> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org> > <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org >> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>> > > <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org >> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org >> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>>> > > > <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org >> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org >> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>> > <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org >> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org >> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>>>>> > > > >>>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >
- BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VT… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Santosh P K
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Santosh P K
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Santosh P K
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… T. Sridhar
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Santosh P K
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Santosh P K
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Santosh P K
- Re:BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at… xiao.min2
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Santosh P K
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Santosh P K
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re:BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at… xiao.min2
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- RE: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… John E Drake
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel Halpern Direct
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Santosh P K
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Santosh P K
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Santosh P K
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Santosh P K
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Selvakumar Sivaraj
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Selvakumar Sivaraj
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Santosh P K