Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> Wed, 23 October 2019 14:38 UTC
Return-Path: <santosh.pallagatti@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 E9AAE12082A; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 aJ_buHpgjZzg; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com (mail-wm1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334]) (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 9B281120825; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id v3so6484893wmh.1; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1AxbXRz6+7SLyIeF/fVjju5uPgi8+/Z3B0e4Sf2L5J8=; b=g54M3r1ZXHuzCJ2K3y406mlq5JHF3ezP+AEsQoIsCB2OI8jCCEpPxxDQx+CQdNdhPU mku3e3+QaPe0NiWlzhKuah/eeA8LrqcoVxZVwRmTFiZ0/+FUgi3Zav9tQPTfkRV+vPsq 43Dt8+xE/HjgIRW25iAlzoNLh7KDqkjguxdv/w8oirv+CX+RG7HIbj7Gshgk/P8ptHjd K6yFPIfOay/oz8sIqiKmgJZpZOKwZDJ8l8NZruQ9m0WqeApGdY4BsTD2cxZDNXkT6aaH u52OUJLEiWOyedr6GDpSIZxEj5u5fam+pEOiE2V+6LR61YgVqYn/p01pSLg8tCb6e30r IWaA==
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=1AxbXRz6+7SLyIeF/fVjju5uPgi8+/Z3B0e4Sf2L5J8=; b=Wgrws8enzACVoGrzNx6vLFBd/Lj+/S5tpSIQUKbNiEVkxATadRG0PMmXxgzzG9VHwV fhAvvg0mGcKDrbHbUNBD9q0chKGqF+NQet9/YgdZbSANQ/PRuU99+Dw/3QvekmzfvGM6 upVsGLCi5TzAe1RUcpeame9vCVg7ABetDwL3QVT0N6GaKroytUaD248KShTXKRbRELzx JPQf/IalN1ZjfdBP0r7q7jyt8YYp8SFmwbdjH2MOwFD3tHJshmEqy3iNxTqK0bVRvEms i/uE2Xbv1AkCCIb0naG3+TpI8irVSR3eYrzvIi3I8jfDkLAp3AkgQBxG1baapD9XMa9X Yijg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXWcohESnz1j0JL9tkGGbAifT2FAjpGYP49xeZ7DeAnuIGNdgN7 t4vtF4oA6/w0zVvO7tCceqS90yoMzfXGtE6voNk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz4BAO5KiVs1C13yCjuL9i2M0hn36t/ePqFpbEtKjvtmRNiYuyjUKEVlQ9/WuRKHyzaWpT4oek196I6BpLTGUs=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:9a8d:: with SMTP id c135mr241151wme.82.1571841530056; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACi9rdu8PKsLW_Pq4ww5DEwLL8Bs6Hq1Je_jmAjES4LKBuE8MQ@mail.gmail.com> <201909251039413767352@zte.com.cn> <CACi9rdv-760M8WgZ1mOOOa=yoJqQFP=vdc3xJKLe7wCR18NSvA@mail.gmail.com> <20191021210752.GA8916@pfrc.org> <0e99a541-b2ca-85d4-4a8f-1165cf7ac01e@joelhalpern.com> <CA+-tSzziDc+Tk8AYfOr5-Xn6oO_uqW2C1dRA9LLOBBVmzVhWEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmVcBgeoGc2z5Gv0grv8OY34tyw+T-T-W2vn1O3AxCSQ9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA+-tSzyHgspKBfLWZ3C69EBb+-k-POqJ7vG7VoN=g077+qzGBA@mail.gmail.com> <1571795542.10436.5@smtp.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXkyQMumeCDxM6OSzdn=DCL=aeyQ+tJmUiyEg0VZuUpRg@mail.gmail.com> <1571798869.2855.1@smtp.gmail.com> <CA+-tSzwRWH5w5nNs6Wzm_qkwvTyq=k-TyJmR9XVM9qsh9QKKXA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+-tSzwRWH5w5nNs6Wzm_qkwvTyq=k-TyJmR9XVM9qsh9QKKXA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 20:08:37 +0530
Message-ID: <CACi9rdvN5KT4a9i9qbSrcXcVwD011n8ufYSV5GX2pVFi+=9nxg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Cc: Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "T. Sridhar" <tsridhar@vmware.com>, xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000ad451059594e0a6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/YrMQp3LupQTH0hdbtbXKQqcjuDE>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 11:02:10 -0700
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, 23 Oct 2019 14:38:55 -0000
Anoop, I guess there were multiple discussion over this should we have inner TTL as 1 or destination IP address as 127/8 range so that if packet gets exposed in underlay it should not be routed via underlay to VTEP. Thanks Santosh P K On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:40 AM Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > The part about the use of 127/8 address appears to be a new thing > introduced in the version of the draft that is as of yet unpublished. What > was the motivation for the change? Previously, the DA was simply set to > the destination VTEP's IP address which seemed fine. > > Anoop > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 7:48 PM Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Greg, >> >> Two comments, one minor and one maybe not. >> >> - In section 3, there's a sentence that is: "BFD packets intended for a >> Hypervisor VTEP MUST NOT..". I recommend getting rid of the word >> "Hypervisor" ashe logic applies to any VTEP. >> >> - You already explained the precedence of the use of 127/8 address in the >> inner header in MPLS. I have no specific comments in that area. I have only >> two questions: >> - Has anybody verified that the use of 127/8 address (and the right >> MAC) works with existing implementations, including the silicon ones? If >> this doesn't work there, is it worth adding the possibilit y of another >> address, one that is owned by the VTEP node? >> - Do we know if Firewalls stop such VXLAN packets? I ask this because >> VXLAN has an IP header and I don't know if firewalls stop packets with >> 127/8 in the inner header. If not, is it worth adding a sentence to say >> that firewalls allow such packets? The use of a non-127/8 address may >> alleviate this case as well. >> >> The rest of the draft looks good to me, >> >> Dinesh >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 7:58 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Dinesh, >> I greatly appreciate your comments. Please heave a look at the attached >> copy of the working version and its diff to -07 (latest in the datatracker). >> >> Regards, >> Greg >> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 9:52 PM Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I have the same feeling as Anoop. Greg, can you please point me to the >>> latest draft so that I can quickly glance through it to be doubly sure, >>> >>> Dinesh >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 4:35 AM, Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Greg, >>> >>> I think the draft is fine as is. >>> >>> I discussion with Xiao Min was about #3 and I see that as unnecessary >>> until we have a draft that explains why that is needed in the context of >>> the NVO3 architecture. >>> >>> Anoop >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:17 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Anoop, et al., >>>> I agree with your understanding of what is being defined in the current >>>> version of the BFD over VxLAN specification. But, as I understand, the WG >>>> is discussing the scope before the WGLC is closed. I believe there are >>>> three options: >>>> >>>> 1. single BFD session between two VTEPs >>>> 2. single BFD session per VNI between two VTEPs >>>> 3. multiple BFD sessions per VNI between two VTEPs >>>> >>>> The current text reflects #2. Is WG accepts this scope? If not, which >>>> option WG would accept? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:09 PM Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I concur with Joel's assessment with the following clarifications. >>>>> >>>>> The current document is already capable of monitoring multiple VNIs >>>>> between VTEPs. >>>>> >>>>> The issue under discussion was how do we use BFD to monitor multiple >>>>> VAPs that use the same VNI between a pair of VTEPs. The use case for this >>>>> is not clear to me, as from my understanding, we cannot have a situation >>>>> with multiple VAPs using the same VNI--there is 1:1 mapping between VAP and >>>>> VNI. >>>>> >>>>> Anoop >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 6:06 AM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> From what I can tell, there are two separate problems. >>>>>> The document we have is a VTEP-VTEP monitoring document. There is no >>>>>> need for that document to handle the multiple VNI case. >>>>>> If folks want a protocol for doing BFD monitoring of things behind >>>>>> the >>>>>> VTEPs (multiple VNIs), then do that as a separate document. The >>>>>> encoding will be a tenant encoding, and thus sesparate from what is >>>>>> defined in this document. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yours, >>>>>> Joel >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/21/2019 5:07 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: >>>>>> > Santosh and others, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 07:50:20PM +0530, Santosh P K wrote: >>>>>> >> Thanks for your explanation. This helps a lot. I would wait >>>>>> for more >>>>>> >> comments from others to see if this what we need in this draft to >>>>>> be >>>>>> >> supported based on that we can provide appropriate sections in the >>>>>> draft. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > The threads on the list have spidered to the point where it is >>>>>> challenging >>>>>> > to follow what the current status of the draft is, or should be. >>>>>> :-) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > However, if I've followed things properly, the question below is >>>>>> really the >>>>>> > hinge point on what our encapsulation for BFD over vxlan should >>>>>> look like. >>>>>> > Correct? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Essentially, do we or do we not require the ability to permit >>>>>> multiple BFD >>>>>> > sessions between distinct VAPs? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > If this is so, do we have a sense as to how we should proceed? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -- Jeff >>>>>> > >>>>>> > [context preserved below...] >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> Santosh P K >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:10 AM <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 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> nvo3 mailing list >>>>>> nvo3@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >>>>>> >>>>>
- BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VT… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Santosh P K
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Santosh P K
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Santosh P K
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… T. Sridhar
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Santosh P K
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Santosh P K
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Santosh P K
- Re:BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at… xiao.min2
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Santosh P K
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Santosh P K
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re:BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at… xiao.min2
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet a… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- RE: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… John E Drake
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel Halpern Direct
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re:[nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control pa… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Santosh P K
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Santosh P K
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Santosh P K
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Santosh P K
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Dinesh Dutt
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Selvakumar Sivaraj
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Selvakumar Sivaraj
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control p… Santosh P K