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

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Wed, 03 July 2019 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.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 E301D120356; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=m/Ri5mOu; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=C+ULsi6Q
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 FYCn5iCbNiYt; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EDD31203A9; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9907; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1562170842; x=1563380442; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=lIsv47RyHBFolDVavDjntG2WOVdDba2QbLLa+Kzeks0=; b=m/Ri5mOuapBVcwrBRNbvRj/szN4Lp20HFN9hcXJs9MVK/dZYfTCR0lsy 6yuMNmyPnJicg6R8dpRaZntzLZYoyCCbUaKdoUlOWG6CHDC7e5Md8Zt5f dci3S8vkkpPv9lnT8hGciQDbDtKDRtRRghftsWCZLoL/h/wBnGdzpikht I=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AWMLPpBHtBN+8iEjX8panKp1GYnJ96bzpIg4Y7I?= =?us-ascii?q?YmgLtSc6Oluo7vJ1Hb+e4z1Q3SRYuO7fVChqKWqK3mVWEaqbe5+HEZON0pNV?= =?us-ascii?q?cejNkO2QkpAcqLE0r+efXybiM8FdhLfFRk5Hq8d0NSHZW2ag=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AIAAC+1Bxd/4ENJK1lGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBUwUBAQEBCwGBFC9QA4E/IAQLKAqEEoNHA4RSiXOVTYRUgS6?= =?us-ascii?q?BJANUCQEBAQwBAS0CAQGEQAIXggsjNAkOAQMBAQQBAQIBBW2KNwyFSwIEEhE?= =?us-ascii?q?dAQE3AQ8CAQgOMQMCAgIwFBECBA4FIoMAgR5NAx0BApoiAoE4iGBxgTKCeQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BBYUQGIISCYE0AYteF4FAP4E4H4JMPoRDgwsygiaMRoFzL4R8iF2NfgkCgha?= =?us-ascii?q?TfxuCK4ccjiqhWoMJAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFQOIFYcBVlAYJBPoIDDBeDTopTcoE?= =?us-ascii?q?pi1QBgSABAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,446,1557187200"; d="scan'208,217";a="299807761"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 03 Jul 2019 16:20:40 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-019.cisco.com (xch-aln-019.cisco.com [173.36.7.29]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x63GKeAk024821 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 Jul 2019 16:20:40 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by XCH-ALN-019.cisco.com (173.36.7.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:20:40 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:20:39 -0500
Received: from NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 12:20:38 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=lIsv47RyHBFolDVavDjntG2WOVdDba2QbLLa+Kzeks0=; b=C+ULsi6Q3HT/QJgShEbOv4oKWwJMWelVEWY1i4EM4FONu5X6dtk9JwZMuFwTSfKTYRc1K9+NVfxvryN4gBZSQdM4wO4N81+dUdkYBnM4K1yOTnxL5BkBLHjgmEy41n+hN0dPVOtxXjwYy/zDo0kbo0RwEAmKEUaxKU1Kefs4umM=
Received: from BL0PR11MB3028.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.177.204.138) by BL0PR11MB3252.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.167.234.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2052.15; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 16:20:37 +0000
Received: from BL0PR11MB3028.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::28e3:f8a3:596:b998]) by BL0PR11MB3028.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::28e3:f8a3:596:b998%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2052.010; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 16:20:37 +0000
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Jeff Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
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>
Subject: Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07
Thread-Topic: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07
Thread-Index: AQHVJMqh+O1Bih53oEC7haZ3x5KaoKajsLYAgAAPSACAAAYzgIAAB4wAgAAC+oCAEoBsAIAC28aA
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 16:20:37 +0000
Message-ID: <A715ED2F-842B-4E6E-9BDF-04740E0D1D86@cisco.com>
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> <6711F7AE-04CE-48C2-BA39-748936D9CB70@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <6711F7AE-04CE-48C2-BA39-748936D9CB70@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=cpignata@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.84]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: de593a1d-3285-4625-fac1-08d6ffd2625a
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BL0PR11MB3252;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BL0PR11MB3252:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BL0PR11MB3252B2145F8AA7DEE36C2341C7FB0@BL0PR11MB3252.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 00872B689F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(136003)(366004)(376002)(39860400002)(346002)(396003)(189003)(199004)(478600001)(26005)(76176011)(68736007)(3846002)(6116002)(66946007)(6916009)(50226002)(186003)(76116006)(99286004)(73956011)(66476007)(66556008)(64756008)(66446008)(256004)(86362001)(8936002)(81156014)(81166006)(8676002)(102836004)(25786009)(6506007)(53546011)(5660300002)(14454004)(71190400001)(71200400001)(6246003)(66066001)(561944003)(2906002)(53936002)(316002)(6436002)(33656002)(54906003)(36756003)(11346002)(6512007)(486006)(2616005)(236005)(476003)(4326008)(6486002)(57306001)(7736002)(446003)(229853002)(54896002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BL0PR11MB3252; H:BL0PR11MB3028.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 7ZexR2NYHP4VzxZZNJV9D2ezGyf5L/Yp5QNuLgtXt16WMWRJK7ySXaRMoLb4EZZPvV4nIuiMEvPncflYwxjt0is2rFdC3TKyytDrX94RgjgWdAtIMRHwLc9zEz/FC0vaI31E9YfAlAqu3tfhdvrVPRU4IgiE4uquh2H0OsX9FexCrrlryAb7gfWp3MYdFazVs6YjXrbiFyhSaHEudUWzRhbLIwwe+pMI4GRpIdjrppnAPhSe+UNxXgvQtNsr6l3B4wwzgWYFdovDOU3BCEEk6ITHnKOQkpd9qG+RZ8JstE4sFaMXmC7Ffr0F498vgObqKDp3gGc63KfMPsTDCTSiLP+YtDtEiLkqpw1jERqLbUDJXHKEfaG5zBwexwiGr13IoQl/xtZM/7zvy8eqkB3VucVHdyaeSqBWvast6WbBQ08=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A715ED2F842B4E6E9BDF04740E0D1D86ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: de593a1d-3285-4625-fac1-08d6ffd2625a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Jul 2019 16:20:37.6939 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: cpignata@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL0PR11MB3252
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.29, xch-aln-019.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-9.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/L_115h6Ck_MkUtlmXjv0yTrcaII>
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, 03 Jul 2019 16:20:53 -0000

Hi, Jeff,

On Jul 1, 2019, at 4:41 PM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org<mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org>> wrote:

Carlos,


On Jun 19, 2019, at 10:09 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com<mailto: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.


I suspected as much as well, but...

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.

…I did not want to assume, and I was simply asking why it was marked out-of-scope; whether that was a deliberate and intentional decision based on technical or code availability reasons, or removing sections just to get the doc out.

Either way is fine — I was asking the rationale for it. Maybe echo as per RFC 5881 would work.

Best,

Carlos.


-- Jeff