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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 06 June 2019 03:20 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 BE5591200A4; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 20:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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] 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 vF2UUNyWnmae; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 20:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (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 A07F0120094; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 20:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45K9sN5szyz1Z4h3; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 20:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1559791240; bh=Gb8HeyoHVUUsB7U0CoveDVBhhVvSNEXXFKqRJWuWDQ0=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=fRriH7VUUZrO9LRbKYOeSBGO770estjRlGWOWyO2C3hR562+eZoi8zP9nKyqEltnT yGBeXPWG8UjHBAgXkAP0V0k19ZkmHeA5T6R5S8fpoX/K52uTR1gvbrg2idNFBZ5CJz YTcNIQZfLQrIaxNAI20N1/RBzhf7d4sxIbFczTaE=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (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 maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45K9sM5rMwz1Z4h2; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 20:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan.all@ietf.org, IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <155864919758.8626.11137277913302380197@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmXO5tYtrm_79KOKJmTp2mbYwynze20EoJA=2gGnJ5jEsw@mail.gmail.com> <98825f67-6958-8845-d5d5-3e0ac5e996e1@joelhalpern.com> <CA+RyBmXmuL+v55SEgHfx-E=bkpLSZe4ceZG5k6e4R=QSuWQ=Ag@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <a8ead230-a09d-8ab9-5263-7414d2bd1acc@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 23:20:38 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmXmuL+v55SEgHfx-E=bkpLSZe4ceZG5k6e4R=QSuWQ=Ag@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/N6p5GmZP5OG8-PlZxnFkb4ncuB0>
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, 06 Jun 2019 03:20:44 -0000

I am having trouble parsing your response.  Apologies.
The first part talks about a VTEP receiving a packet, and determining if 
there is a receiver VM for the inner MAC.  That is a quote from 7348 
Section 4.1.  I understand it.

You then go on to quote from section 5 of the BFD over VxLAN 
specification saying that it modifies this to specify that the VTEP 
checks for its own MAC address.
The only problem is that the VTEP is not part of the tenant network. 
Any MAC address you want it to use may be in use by the tenant network. 
As far as I know, in normal VxLAN oepration, VTEPs do NOT have their own 
MAC addresses within the scope of the VNI.

Now, if you say that BFD will only be used with VNI 0 (i.e. a VNI that 
is not assigned to a tenant), then the conflict goes away.  But again, 
there is no need for special MAC checking.  Just declare that the VTEP 
looks for OAM content on VNI 0.

So no, your proposed change does not address my concern, as "VTEP's MAC 
address is not, to the best of my knowledge, a well-defined term.  I am 
happy to be shown where such a thing is defined for use within tenant VNIs.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/5/19 9:55 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> I cannot find the text in RFC 7348 that suggests that any 
> VXLAN-encapsulated frame received by VTEP must be forwarded to a VM 
> associated with the specified VNI. But I've found the text in section 
> 4.1 that makes the forwarding of the inner frame to VM conditional to 
> the destination MAC address matching to VM's MAC:
>     Upon reception, the remote VTEP
>     verifies the validity of the VNI and whether or not there is a VM on
>     that VNI using a MAC address that matches the inner destination MAC
>     address.  If so, the packet is stripped of its encapsulating headers
>     and passed on to the destination VM.
> BFD over VXLAN specification in section 5 clarifies the processing of 
> the received VXLAN packet by the remote VXLAN:
>     Once a packet is received, VTEP MUST validate the packet.  If the
>     Destination MAC of the inner MAC frame matches the MAC address of the
>     VTEP the packet MUST be processed further.
> 
>     The UDP destination port and the TTL of the inner IP packet MUST be
>     validated to determine if the received packet can be processed by
>     BFD.  BFD packet with inner MAC set to VTEP's MAC address MUST NOT be
>     forwarded to VMs.
> Would this text address your concern?
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com 
> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
> 
>     The inner packet of a VxLAN header with a VNI is a tenant packet for
>     the
>     tenant identified by the VNI.  That is the meaning of the inner packet.
> 
>     If you declare that the flag bits change that meaning, then that flag
>     bit has to adjust the packet processing at the VTEP such taht it will
>     intercept the packet.  As such, it doesn;t need special inner source or
>     dest mac addresses or IP addresses.  In fact, the inner packet can just
>     be OAM payload.
> 
>     If that is not what you intend, then how is it that the VTEP knows that
>     the inner addresses are for it to examine, rather than belonging to the
>     tenant.  As far as I know we are not free to take addresses away from
>     the tenant.
> 
>     It may be that I am completely missing how this is supposed to
>     work.  If
>     so, it needs better explanation.
> 
>     Yours,
>     Joel
> 
>     On 6/5/19 5:20 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>      > Hi Joel,
>      > thank you for your review and the pointed questions. Please find my
>      > answers, comments in-line and tagged GIM>>.
>      >
>      > Regards,
>      > Greg
>      >
>      >
>      > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 3:06 PM Joel Halpern via Datatracker
>      > <noreply@ietf.org <mailto:noreply@ietf.org>
>     <mailto:noreply@ietf.org <mailto:noreply@ietf.org>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>      >     Review result: Has Issues
>      >
>      >     Hello,
>      >
>      >     I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this
>      >     draft. The
>      >     Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or
>     routing-related
>      >     drafts as
>      >     they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and
>     sometimes on
>      >     special
>      >     request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance
>     to the
>      >     Routing ADs.
>      >     For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
>      > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>      >
>      >     Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing
>      >     ADs, it would
>      >     be helpful if you could consider them along with any other
>     IETF Last
>      >     Call
>      >     comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
>      >     discussion or by
>      >     updating the draft.
>      >
>      >     Document: ddraft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07
>      >     Reviewer: your-name
>      >     Review Date: date
>      >     IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
>      >     Intended Status: copy-from-I-D
>      >
>      >     Summary: This document does not appear to be ready for
>     publication as a
>      >     Proposed Standard RFC.
>      >
>      >     Major issues:
>      >          The scoping of the BFD usage is unclear.  In places,
>     this looks
>      >     like it is
>      >          intended to be used by the underlay service provider, 
>     who will
>      >     monitor the
>      >          connectivity between VTEPs.
>      >
>      > GIM>> I think that the DCI provider would not be able to
>     instantiate a
>      > BFD session using VXLAN encapsulation and, possibly, monitor that
>     VXLAN
>      > part of forwarding operates properly. Such BFD session may
>     monitor the
>      > path between the two VTEP but, if there exists ECMP environment
>     in the
>      > transport, ensuring that that BFD session follows the same path
>     as VXLAN
>      > data may be challenging.
>      >
>      >     In other places it seems to be aimed at
>      >          monitoring individual VNIs.
>      >
>      > GIM>> The BFD session between VTEPs is not actually used to
>     monitor the
>      > particular VNI but MAY be used to communicate, as concatenated path
>      > state signaling, the change of VNI state using the method
>     described in
>      > Section 6.8.17 RFC 5880
>      > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5880#section-6.8.17>;.
>      >
>      >     This is made worse when the packet format is
>      >          laid out.  The inner packet is an Ethernet Packet with an IP
>      >     packet (with
>      >          UDP, with BFD).  This means that it is a tenant packet.
>      >
>      > GIM>> Could you please point to the text which suggests that the BFD
>      > control packet is a tenant packet? Meant to be delivered to a tenant?
>      >
>      >     The IP address is
>      >          a tenant IP.
>      >
>      > GIM>> The explanation of the format states in regard to the inner
>     IP header:
>      >         IP header:
>      >
>      >           Source IP: IP address of the originating VTEP.
>      >
>      >           Destination IP: IP address of the terminating VTEP.
>      >
>      >     But the diagram shows this as being the IP address of the
>      >          VTEP.  Which is not a tenant entity.
>      >
>      >         There is further confusion as to whether the processing is
>      >     driven by the VNI
>      >         the packet arrived with, or the VNI is ignored.
>      >
>      > GIM>> The use of VNI is implementation specific. Section 6 states:
>      >   6.  Use of the Specific VNI
>      >
>      >     In most cases, a single BFD session is sufficient for the
>     given VTEP
>      >     to monitor the reachability of a remote VTEP, regardless of the
>      >     number of VNIs in common.  When the single BFD session is used to
>      >     monitor the reachability of the remote VTEP, an
>     implementation SHOULD
>      >     choose any of the VNIs but MAY choose VNI = 0.
>      >
>      >
>      >     Minor Issues:
>      >         N/A
>      >
>      >     Nits: N/A
>      >
>