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

Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Tue, 08 October 2019 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ghanwani@gmail.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 C2800120072; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 15:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.476
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.172, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 5Mo0k3P5fLCf; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 15:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-f48.google.com (mail-ua1-f48.google.com [209.85.222.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52CB4120020; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 15:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-f48.google.com with SMTP id n2so149723ual.11; Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1Pc5IADyGLBNRA/Si8m1oTBGLImPc9A0s7XYik1rEpM=; b=liiap4hL5TPHJ0CEx2xpk+7EKZ03x0GCq0PjlhR/47gkJ2N5MTeXrdbx1eNL2IQYXB m3j+QiqMiW+m5E59rktMc0Git1mFPoBSGZ9KvhdXzdh3h4mxahOTJUhXQNybF/34PaN4 YMrqBXdiE/YyOxRc6ynoraX0cDQ9AYEyHsCRiTpUDMA3dg9UKWQV4m9nXomPR3xLj619 hN6gezGVTI4QpKUfNGBB4aPuuAfcqpdfX+AEngH8HHRhTnxye7bsYeI6E0IFA8lJhQY1 UQK9pjEm8DdYt7kTadwRoXh3py6D0JM9s2UNLNfGwmvm+0q0qU/qNmEca2bW/+019GWa +Zkg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWPhlRj+m0Ee+L6AxeFtqoY7tX9ZPGasN/2YMTEktVFBZG/PieN lK/2DUze00mDNnSjG2PDeylzUJRgBdWc1cBiVBo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzdsHw3Qxg62YCyaA1HuUb9iPgeS26lh30RnOQ00johhijzGMBfOBX/GPcXOVocrJ2qg23W3WBGr+Mwt2E+yC0=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:409:: with SMTP id 9mr198156uav.99.1570573708102; Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+-tSzwU1-pErVmWDEM6KNv-vTbWNvs12Dd7Rh1wp6e==_X_uw@mail.gmail.com> <201910081529034949208@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <201910081529034949208@zte.com.cn>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 15:28:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzzG4aE8VZbGtYLW9M647fkLpcfxzd_FdeXXr7YaXkp6=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
To: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, didutt@gmail.com, draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org, nvo3@ietf.org, santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, tsridhar@vmware.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f713d705946dafc6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/GlrQx3VIrqHYk_SkoHFd1NRZXTU>
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, 08 Oct 2019 22:28:32 -0000

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>rg>;
> santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd WG <
> rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>;
> 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>rg>;
>> santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd WG <
>> rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>;
>> 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>rg>;
>>> santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd WG <
>>> rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>;
>>> tsridhar@vmware.com <tsridhar@vmware.com>;bfd-chairs@ietf.org <
>>> bfd-chairs@ietf.org>gt;;
>>> *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>rg>;
>>>> santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd WG
>>>> <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>;
>>>> tsridhar@vmware.com <tsridhar@vmware.com>;bfd-chairs@ietf.org <
>>>> bfd-chairs@ietf.org>gt;;
>>>> *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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>