IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP

Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com> Wed, 30 October 2019 02:02 UTC

Return-Path: <didutt@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 6B5CC12009E; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:02:56 -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 p_aXitNf2KyU; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x430.google.com (mail-pf1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::430]) (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 DC61C120059; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x430.google.com with SMTP id p26so404293pfq.8; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:subject:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version; bh=D6ZA7pZNE/Dc2sHCar+p96gdnfXDyznXyuZ16KtFeek=; b=aIORuzcZoCRoNgaFi5t/qMUTCAUhAxEf0f/7Tp5a2fzwH+r7pOcFGOo3iZG6OtozJF imF8o5FjD4j8dKR27/DsdrXCrbnBLkNarEKJ/6XCiw4Lv1hH3attWpVUegLm0G8Kmg2F z7m6lfXRDbUFouMGhM85J6i7bLr3rQBVy8YboGfkD9VdCQ1rt6R3QjKvB+/8fgZ4fDTn 0xQXCW8c7dA6ynELy3sgD+gUs4KzA0+tF68VKJtzWxvMfCXiGN9s8UMuAEA3ii9f1sRD RE1lREryLtCW6H9VaeisMNZM80M+KmWzNkPpwKyX1p32Q/7KCGuN2DgfFxM6Pxanwz8+ 3zzw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:subject:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version; bh=D6ZA7pZNE/Dc2sHCar+p96gdnfXDyznXyuZ16KtFeek=; b=TzVfXeLlnab3WdR40XFOy0wNLCWeNXX79aQceow+OFj4t6Po9a+qMremktT0kP9kxU NOgkmd4lsk8sk9wXJJVoJ0OnuENDDFz3ORijHuec6a3ULPPUijRbiS8hcs1M7VSynPb6 /7SDt2+rmnmFTdlQu4Hq5LR558ePT7WbK9yec1d+zXq8OaWM/T/g4RBwlzwjqGosnTeJ Q2UdmCa9n1bowpJy9DSSluS9m+JWFMx6INgI47ZAVat4hQG1CdGI1dTC+xDZ90MV6j24 DDEPyU4eNcD+70RHG3UgWMc+ywr2gFt74Fxq/dSOvRsMPbp0Stjw7vkUAzqd2+bkPabb p+zA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUssXCqIidRYLTO3xf1VzrsYAxVHbbByldChZq4C7Fy9iPod2m0 WGV87/rELxeCI6THUbVGcIM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyXJFYz278KzWi+uv5YyBNXPeC0YJo2s3MIJTK6gZ/DNRgzUMCEynsc6pBMS8sdy5A71Qf/xQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:a605:: with SMTP id c5mr11069364pjq.28.1572400974408; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.43.218] ([42.109.130.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y80sm415341pfc.30.2019.10.29.19.02.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 07:02:45 +0500
From: Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>, Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, 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
Message-Id: <1572400965.28051.8@smtp.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20191029205651.GA10145@pfrc.org>
References: <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> <CACi9rduyvhweJd_aNx6miiUGyu-nCeqnNHGbPjyCfswHx1RD5A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXLBLARxhA4MUvD6DE8vvY1oDP0opkxDqiPA4zYw9Jpug@mail.gmail.com> <1571860470.2855.11@smtp.gmail.com> <CACi9rdtwiuH2VjuUkzeg3+PhwcFMSqFepbcM0tgmRxSbcR3AQQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+-tSzyi=uDdqSDq4u7kytAucX136mO2XtPtR=DG+KKAC5PjCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACi9rdsLYuf9_v-uNZ8SLW+sif+O9wNjjHvNu2xQrTuWxJfyOA@mail.gmail.com> <20191029205651.GA10145@pfrc.org>
X-Mailer: geary/0.12.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-ZK6tnp9pqDJAX7MvOpwr"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/a0nazv1zP4KSsqLRMOtCc0CFo3E>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 04:22:38 -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, 30 Oct 2019 02:02:57 -0000


On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:26 AM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:
> Santosh,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:24:06PM +0530, Santosh P K wrote:
>>  "As per section 4 inner destination IP address MAY be set to 127/8 
>> address.
>>  There could be firewall configured on VTEP to block 127/8 address 
>> range if
>>  set as destination IP in inner IP header. It is recommended to 
>> allow 127/8
>>  range address through firewall only if inner IP header's 
>> destination IP is
>>  set to 127/8 IP address."
> 
> Would it be reasonable to suggest "SHOULD be set"?

This sounds reasonable to me.

Dinesh
> 
> Our motivation in this section is to offer what is likely to be a 
> reasonable
> default, without providing restriction from something more amenable 
> to some
> provider's requirement.
> 
> Similarly, based on this text, we'll get asked about "recommended" vs.
> "RECOMMENDED".  What level of strength do you think we should have 
> here?
> 
> 
> -- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email