Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08.txt

Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Mon, 04 November 2019 15:00 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 9F06C120A62; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 07:00:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.139
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.139 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, 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 T3EUOhatCeIZ; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 07:00:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-f47.google.com (mail-vs1-f47.google.com [209.85.217.47]) (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 96371120986; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 07:00:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-f47.google.com with SMTP id y129so11163753vsc.6; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 07:00:42 -0800 (PST)
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=+xHobcSm4cxGdT5LCPpFYwZ5ktAQJo6VFhFSHG74+Dk=; b=l9vXdIiWn1vQqcearJZURuI2/7ey/A9JWE+k+YT9e7nh6wqdBbkLfo1uUk9zeYpDmw cdie8sBJrFwspzIedKhVyR8Y12pokH5rfui+ewRHeCLq06EojP1O4QPDuN5+Zbk4nQDE 28cThty8xiG/twpd6k0UXBsVJG90F15oWXfHaoyHlrvUtT1rSRN3dAuJzYuvFQj4FSKZ SsT71RROQKRmHtd92x4crR/xb/CttMPbrQ+t0b0SEzk9MyIHdjtjPlf43RTYmT9bmXuP +7SP/gr9UsxBUWb2fOMrsQogP4Pvi219h6Ud6I7hOckcsHPzNsTYEpM8BfUHY/wQafF0 cODg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWCw7mvbGNhS0icqlPyDD9p0VXWXmzyBZBthBHp1wKq3AY+MOn6 nD62585WtG8NteRMI0Tn9Tg5LHnNzuhA1VAEj+RRgL6u
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwd8D/dWVfQwJgG4YwJhIeTRG37KuYreiBi4EUv4E2yJO04uXIRJvZOMS8cu7AJBQ6OxXc9moyUvc2It6ydqrw=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:1a82:: with SMTP id a124mr12779625vsa.60.1572879641444; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 07:00:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <c5ff1b1f-4b07-9be5-0519-de3849ea5ce8@joelhalpern.com> <CA+-tSzw4TwmC_qxBX8Q4inWswMTS2nBmSVCJVcCN9PRpDa-ghw@mail.gmail.com> <CACi9rdvzrDXO=stf=fiiEOk_en=nTEvBhXYk33gdyjmRPJes-w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACi9rdvzrDXO=stf=fiiEOk_en=nTEvBhXYk33gdyjmRPJes-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 07:00:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzy1zyrozrB17OmcG67QauU6Z5V3T0a-a9B9zQnFLjvnYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08.txt
To: Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>, Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004d87360596869410"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/MjhCikaOwE1_zP6H-s3apQ4d1V0>
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 15:00:50 -0000

Hi Santosh,

I'm not aware of any implementation that uses a multicast MAC for this.
The closest thing that I'm aware of that helps alleviate the need for
knowing the MAC of the remote VTEP is what's done in open vswitch:
http://www.openvswitch.org/support/dist-docs/vtep.5.html

   *b**f**d**_**c**o**n**f**i**g**_**r**e**m**o**t**e* *:*
*b**f**d**_**d**s**t**_**m**a**c*: optional string
              Set  to an Ethernet address in the form
*x**x*:*x**x*:*x**x*:*x**x*:*x**x*:*x**x* to set
              the destination MAC to be used for transmitted BFD packets.  The
              default is *0**0**:**2**3**:**2**0**:**0**0**:**0**0**:**0**1*.

That OUI belongs to Nicira/VMware.  An IANA assigned unicast MAC would be
the equivalent.

Anoop

On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 5:14 AM Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> Anoop,
>    Thanks for your comments. For non-managment VNI why do we need to have
> multicast MAC address for backward compatibility for existing
> implementation or there are any use cases such that we can avoid learning
> of remote end VTEP?
>
> Thanks
> Santosh P K
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 10:41 AM Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>;
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Joel,
>>
>> In that case I would propose the following 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.  If the BFD session uses
>> the Management VNI, it may use any MAC address, since use of the
>> Management VNI ensures that these packets will never be forwarded to a VM.
>> The MAC address may be configured, or it may be learned via
>> a control plane protocol. The details of how the MAC address
>> to be used is obtained are outside the scope of this document."
>>
>> That said, for non-Management VNI, do we want to allow for flexibility
>> for an implementation to use a multicast MAC of their choosing?  If so, we
>> should probably add a sentence for that too.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Anoop
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 7:52 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>;
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <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> <
>>> http://tools.ietf.org>;.
>>> >
>>> >             The IETF Secretariat
>>> >
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nvo3 mailing list
>> nvo3@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>>
>