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

<xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> Thu, 10 October 2019 06:06 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
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 3E1A11200DF; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 23:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 EsWW4TQYB8Jp; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 23:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 2809412001A; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 23:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 4BE37B41DF68ABAAED0D; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 14:05:20 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp01.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.200]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id x9A64HYv020364; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 14:04:17 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 14:04:17 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 14:04:17 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa5d9ec9e160762866
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201910101404176280661@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CA+-tSzyUWzp-Rzb=GEjEU_OPVAQsH5+7MLMTU2x+zY3Mxi+LTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: CA+-tSzzG4aE8VZbGtYLW9M647fkLpcfxzd_FdeXXr7YaXkp6=Q@mail.gmail.com, CA+-tSzyUWzp-Rzb=GEjEU_OPVAQsH5+7MLMTU2x+zY3Mxi+LTw@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
To: <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Cc: <draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org>, <nvo3@ietf.org>, <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6W252bzNdIEJGRCBvdmVyIFZYTEFOOiBUcmFwcGluZyBCRkQgQ29udHJvbCBwYWNrZXQgYXQgVlRFUA==?=
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn x9A64HYv020364
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/8Dyg47n-inQtCu3GrxB_inlXJcE>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 08:05:40 -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: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 06:06:27 -0000

Hi Anoop,






Normally, it is. While Tenant Systems connect to NVE through IP routing network or MPLS forwarding network, it is not.






Best Regards,


Xiao Min



原始邮件



发件人:AnoopGhanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
收件人:肖敏10093570;
抄送人:draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org>;nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>;rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>rg>;
日 期 :2019年10月10日 05:33
主 题 :Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP




Hi Xiao Min,
Normally, I think of a VNI as a broadcast domain.  The only way I can make sense of the picture below is to have a separate VNI for each MPLS interface on the NVE.

Anoop




On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 11:09 PM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote:


Hi Anoop,







In this use case there is no forwarding happens between the MPLS and non-MPLS parts, would this use case be prohibited?


If the answer is yes, then I agree that all Tenant Systems attached to a common NVE MUST share a VAP so long as they connect to the same VN, although in RFC8014 it uses "can" but not "MUST". As a result, we should not allow multiple BFD sessions for the same VNI between two NVEs.


If the answer is no, then we should allow multiple BFD sessions for the same VNI between two NVEs. I personally lean to this answer.






Best Regards,


Xiao Min



原始邮件


发件人:AnoopGhanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
收件人:肖敏10093570;
抄送人:Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>;draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org>;nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>;santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>;tsridhar@vmware.com <tsridhar@vmware.com>om>;
日 期 :2019年10月09日 06:28
主 题 :Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP


Hi Xiao Min,
The picture doesn't have enough information to explain why they are in the same VNI, and exactly how forwarding happens between the MPLS and non-MPLS parts.

Anoop




On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:31 AM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote:


Hi Anoop,







I don't know such a draft that describes MPLS over Geneve, but I believe the following figure derived from figure 1 of RFC8014 would help, in the following figure Tenant System1, Tenant System2, Tenant System3 and Tenant System4 are assumed belonging to the same VNI, so two BFD sessions for the same VNI need to be run between NVE1 and NVE2.

 +--------+
 +----| Tenant |
 ( ' ) | System1|
 ................ ( MPLS ) +--------+
 . . +--+-+ ( _ )
 . .--|NVE1|---+
 . . | |
 . . +--+-+
 . . |
 . L3 Overlay . ( ' )
 . Network . (Ethernet)
 . . ( _ )
 . . |
 ................ +--------+
 | | Tenant |
 +----+ | System2|
 |NVE2| +--------+
 | |--------+
 +----+ |
 | |
 ( ' ) ( ' )
 ( MPLS ) (Ethernet)
 ( _ ) ( _ )
 | |
 +--------+ +--------+
 | Tenant | | Tenant |
 | System3| | System4|
 +--------+ +--------+




Best Regards,


Xiao Min



原始邮件


发件人:AnoopGhanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
收件人:肖敏10093570;
抄送人:Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>;draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org>;nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>;santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>;tsridhar@vmware.com <tsridhar@vmware.com>om>;
日 期 :2019年10月08日 12:15
主 题 :Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP



Hi Xiao Min,
Is there a draft that describes MPLS over Geneve?  It sounds like the NVE is an MPLS router in this case and if you're using the same VNI as you switch MPLS, then it's a one-armed router.  That doesn't change how BFD needs to be run between NVEs.

Anoop




On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 7:28 PM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote:


Hi Anoop,






Sorry for the late response, I just come back from vacation.


The use case is that the network between the VM and the NVE is an MPLS network, within which the packet is forwarded basing on MPLS label, but not Ethernet MAC address and/or 802.1Q VLAN. When two such kind of MPLS networks need to communicate with each other, through a Geneve tunnel, the encap I illustrated would be used.






Best Regards,


Xiao Min



原始邮件


发件人:AnoopGhanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
收件人:肖敏10093570;
抄送人:Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>;draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org>;nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>;santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>;tsridhar@vmware.com <tsridhar@vmware.com>om>;
日 期 :2019年09月28日 05:36
主 题 :Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP



Hi Xiao Min,
Thanks for the details about the encap but the use case is not clear.  It might help if you explain why its necessary to map a physical Ethernet port and/or 802.1Q VLAN to the same VNI as an MPLS packet without an L2 header.

Thanks,
Anoop




On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 7:50 PM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote:


Hi Anoop,






Due to the fact that a variety of Tunnels could be used under the NVO3 architecture, as an example, below figure illustrates the format of MPLS packet over Geneve Tunnel.




 0 1 2 3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | |
 ~ Outer Ethernet Header ~
 | |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | |
 ~ Outer IPvX Header ~
 | |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | |
 ~ Outer UDP Header ~
 | |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | |
 ~ Geneve Header ~
 | |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
 | | |
 ~ MPLS Label Stack ~ M
 | | P
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ L
 | | S
 | |
 ~ Payload ~ P
 | | K
 | | T
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
 | FCS |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+





Note that in NVO3 working group Greg and I have submitted an individual draft draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve, which is used to address BFD over Geneve.

The intention is to make the two drafts draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan and draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve aligned, that is to say, we try to define the identical mechanism for the common part of BFD over VxLAN Tunnel and BFD over Geneve Tunnel. For the common part, draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve would reference to draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan, and for the other part specific to Geneve, we'll define the specific mechanism in draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve.




Hope that clarifies.




Best Regards,

Xiao Min



原始邮件


发件人:AnoopGhanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
收件人:肖敏10093570;
抄送人:Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>;draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org>;nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>;santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>;tsridhar@vmware.com <tsridhar@vmware.com>;bfd-chairs@ietf.org <bfd-chairs@ietf.org>rg>;
日 期 :2019年09月26日 23:16
主 题 :Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP



Hi Xiao Min,
I think we would need more detail around the use case below.  What does the MPLS packet over Tunnel look like?

Thanks,
Anoop




On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 11:37 PM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote:


Hi Anoop,






Thanks for your comments.


Considering a scenario where TS1 has an MPLS access (i.e. MPLS-Packet over Tunnel between NVEs) to VNI1, TS3 has an Ethernet access (i.e. MAC-Frame over Tunnel between NVEs) to VNI1, then how can TS1 and TS3 share one VAP?






Best Regards,


Xiao Min



原始邮件


发件人:AnoopGhanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
收件人:肖敏10093570;
抄送人:Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>;draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org>;nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>;santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>;tsridhar@vmware.com <tsridhar@vmware.com>;bfd-chairs@ietf.org <bfd-chairs@ietf.org>rg>;
日 期 :2019年09月26日 08:36
主 题 :Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP

_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3



>>>

Some people may argue that all Tenant Systems connecting to the same Virtual Network MUST share one VAP, if that's true, then VAP1 and VAP3 should merge into one VAP and my explanation doesn't work. Copying to NVO3 WG to involve more experts, hope for your clarifications and comments.  


>>>

I would be one of those that would argue that they MUST share on VAP if they connect to the same Virtual Network.  IMO, the NVO3 arch doc should have been clearer about this.

Thanks,
Anoop



On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 7:40 PM <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.






Of course, in RFC8014 it also says:

"Note that two different Tenant Systems (and TSIs) attached to a common NVE can share a VAP (e.g., TS1 and TS2 in Figure 2) so long as they connect to the same Virtual Network."
Some people may argue that all Tenant Systems connecting to the same Virtual Network MUST share one VAP, if that's true, then VAP1 and VAP3 should merge into one VAP and my explanation doesn't work. Copying to NVO3 WG to involve more experts, hope for your clarifications and comments.






Best Regards,


Xiao Min





























































_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3