Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08.txt

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 03:52 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 4367D120877; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:52:11 -0800 (PST)
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 VOPFTZAvIyLB; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:52:08 -0800 (PST)
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 B0765120848; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:52:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475zQ04XmpzwPJ3; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:52:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1572839528; bh=m2x+XoViTI4XZDyPArM8otLC6/a51MZ4CZKBAKa31EA=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=oTRutfWEfqhfQ76QyPhr6rB/ClRJJ0ab65iNS+X6L4515OOkmR7oJqIbHg/sQibX0 A6GOUP21oW5maxq7FEudlX6jokaHvxtvddSMcW3e+1TKWr3IwapGkGmJgB0rEIfGmu /pk5t8TVgginUUfy5vIRujextpFUIDtSjaZQKXvc=
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 475zPz3vBKzFpVD; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:52:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08.txt
To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>, Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com>
References: <157263030423.31830.4277364795812171214.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmUn2zSME51_rDW+y-GdWTmOXQiV7BKkRbNwcy12q8ZjxA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+-tSzxvknwYwvh-s-UK_C7YoF04eiFhyBvVxoNmT=52=EUnWw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmU0FViBV8TrwpLN7hUVMkbp9h4E-N048T4BM7a=7F6MdA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+-tSzxNHF0pRq1-7sPz4eWqCVVpf52jDhhqq0iNFu02Eso1pQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <c5ff1b1f-4b07-9be5-0519-de3849ea5ce8@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 22:52:05 -0500
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: <CA+-tSzxNHF0pRq1-7sPz4eWqCVVpf52jDhhqq0iNFu02Eso1pQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/LJXRO4UdO7KvEF8c7g1wWqysTnM>
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, 04 Nov 2019 03:52:11 -0000

Anoop, I think I at least am misunderstanding you.
If one is using the management VNI, as I understand it there is no 
tenant.  So there are no tenant MAC addresses.  (This is one of the 
reasons I like using the management VNI.)


Yours,
Joel

On 11/3/2019 10:32 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> In the case of the management VNI, are we trying to say that we would 
> allow any MAC address other than a tenant MAC address?  I would suggest 
> some more text be added to clarify what is permitted on the management 
> VLAN.  Assuming that we want to allow any MAC other than a tenant MAC, 
> how does this get enforced?  In other words, what can be done for the 
> network to protect itself if a sender violates this?
> 
> One possible answer is to restrict the MAC address that may be used to 
> one that is owned by the VTEP or a "agreed on" multicast MAC address.  
> That means the receiver only needs to validate for those, and just 
> treats everything else as data.
> 
> Also, for interoperability purposes, it would be best to specify that a 
> receiver MUST be able to handle any valid MAC address for the BFD 
> session, while a sender MAY pick any of them.
> 
> Thanks,
> Anoop
> 
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 6:50 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com 
> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Anoop,
>     thank you for your comments and questions. Please find my notes
>     in-line tagged GIM>>.
> 
>     Regards,
>     Greg
> 
>     On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 4:24 PM Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu
>     <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> wrote:
> 
>         Hi Greg,
> 
>         A few comments.
> 
>         The draft has nits, specifically around the way the IPv6 address
>         is written.
> 
>         In section 4:
> 
>         BFD packet MUST be encapsulated ->
> 
>         BFD packets MUST be encapsulated
> 
>     GIM>> Thanks, will do.
> 
> 
>          >>>
> 
>         Destination MAC: This MUST NOT be of one of tenant's MAC
>                   addresses.  The destination MAC address MAY be the address
>                   associated with the destination VTEP.  The MAC address MAY be
>                   configured, or it MAY be learned via a control plane protocol.
>                   The details of how the MAC address is obtained are outside the
>                   scope of this document.
> 
>          >>>
>         It looks like we have removed the option of using a well-known
>         IANA assigned MAC.  If so, why is the above a MAY and not a
>         MUST?  What else can it be?  One interpretation is that it can
>         be anything unicast, or multicast, as long as it's not a tenant
>         MAC.  Is that the intent?  If so, it would be better to state it
>         that way.  Also (and this is purely editorial), I think it would
>         be better if the first sentence above were moved to the end of
>         the paragraph.
> 
>     GIM>> Yes, you're right, we've removed that option and have removed
>     the request to IANA. I also agree that " MAY be the address
>     associated with the destination VTEP" is not the right choice of
>     normative language. On the other hand, MUST might be too restrictive
>     if BFD session is using the Management VNI. Would the following
>     update address your concern:
>     OLD TEXT:
>               Destination MAC: This MUST NOT be of one of tenant's MAC
>               addresses.  The destination MAC address MAY be the address
>               associated with the destination VTEP.  The MAC address MAY be
>               configured, or it MAY be learned via a control plane protocol.
>               The details of how the MAC address is obtained are outside the
>               scope of this document.
>     NEW TEXT:
>               Destination MAC: If the BFD session is not using the
>     Management VNI,
>               the destination MAC address MUST be the address
>               associated with the destination VTEP.  The Destination MAC
>               MUST NOT be one of the tenant's MAC addresses.
>              The MAC address MAY be configured, or it MAY be learned via
>              a control plane protocol. The details of how the MAC address
>              is obtained are outside the scope of this document.
> 
> 
>         "The inner Ethernet frame carrying the BFD
>             Control packet- has the following format:"
> 
>         Extraneous '-' after packet.
> 
>     GIM>> Thanks, will do that too.
> 
> 
>         Thanks,
>         Anoop
> 
>         On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 10:53 AM Greg Mirsky
>         <gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>             Dear All,
>             the new version includes updates resulting from the
>             discussions of Joel's comments in the RtrDir review of BFD
>             over VXLAN draft, comments from Anoop, and Dinesh. On behalf
>             of editors, thank you for your constructive comments and for
>             sharing your expertise, all much appreciated.
>             I hope we've addressed all your comments, and the draft can
>             proceed further.
> 
>             Regards,
>             Greg
> 
>             ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>             From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org
>             <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>>
>             Date: Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 10:45 AM
>             Subject: New Version Notification for
>             draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08.txt
>             To: Gregory Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com
>             <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>, Mallik Mudigonda
>             <mmudigon@cisco.com <mailto:mmudigon@cisco.com>>, Sudarsan
>             Paragiri <sudarsan.225@gmail.com
>             <mailto:sudarsan.225@gmail.com>>, Vengada Prasad Govindan
>             <venggovi@cisco.com <mailto:venggovi@cisco.com>>, Santosh
>             Pallagatti <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>             <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>
> 
> 
> 
>             A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08.txt
>             has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the
>             IETF repository.
> 
>             Name:           draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan
>             Revision:       08
>             Title:          BFD for VXLAN
>             Document date:  2019-11-01
>             Group:          bfd
>             Pages:          11
>             URL:
>             https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08.txt
>             Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan/
>             Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08
>             Htmlized:
>             https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan
>             Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08
> 
>             Abstract:
>                 This document describes the use of the Bidirectional
>             Forwarding
>                 Detection (BFD) protocol in point-to-point Virtual
>             eXtensible Local
>                 Area Network (VXLAN) tunnels forming up an overlay network.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>             Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the
>             time of submission
>             until the htmlized version and diff are available at
>             tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org>;.
> 
>             The IETF Secretariat
>