Re: BFD for vxlan Destination MAC field (was Re: draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan IESG status)

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Mon, 10 August 2020 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@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 048923A0B49; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 N7oba9hJP--o; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x133.google.com (mail-il1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::133]) (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 822E83A0B35; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x133.google.com with SMTP id x1so8191699ilp.7; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:08:30 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=84QTFgmF45Ndclp18jPDlrxfrDgtIjMB4dEv/uR+gj4=; b=efdViVYRRMpfaXHYWvvO+pt9gRT1H3jgPMheYdRjFFS3qEMDgj5yKL9ddWOD0kbzES FMmfUqyq49nVdIgurkfYu9vjQD8G0Dhp7wo7ztzcUlmMrRkqM7diu6XrpUXHJh7Rgw7g gvhHY/UuPP341Lpmny0+uRzq/eoUYgEHWcgGSoOhRJGLeot34tQxcmwOJrwkkzwaWvMK +Z9Srx6Y5/AUrk0FejDgcn5XDnX9hRDoBGctfWaMVuq8WwSklO0AUQWakBX8uOyfRlHp ekT6J+QcbUYuLxAeHD0DEz4Iw9kiB1sc0Af1yhEkp5xYfSV5mSLUcTthIGcMG0caqNzB XXEQ==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=84QTFgmF45Ndclp18jPDlrxfrDgtIjMB4dEv/uR+gj4=; b=HrZZbMzy7Nla7Di7bjP+oLnk7PbH7HjuaAfwAlGvuus1YX62mFGUHXOzybOmYAoMEk ANmdfkeKqRlayacFbNecDZIhF/6x2T2gtvshL68DgM6usBzKxoltcKg6WE0UKvFeu9zr GJew+9nVE8pOkuItnSWSjR9xe5jPxwOHQtF48btsfTYCjc2bPOsMaotMaGp0tKTZ7pJ6 6nGAfIFHxZV/dHcvBMVScjH9jJoB5U6Fuxhe/HZAj+4VDgrVa6Q+JNhh+4JSH/d+Zavj +pwXPtIT6QdVr7GG/Kq4YMRnUvlTxRbHqWn6j7kL8k5eoAEiWCw3xpRxVun+gkD9ngbn 9SSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530fz1Z/oaaOiy/6g1zIsNHjFqoOUbnIBoOVo48veq5XTQlL9ZhT YduR7Q996XOvPC90iLtA2ahABVoospxDZj1o5mk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy/IcfudAAh746ovu5z62fAOa55Sp94/xwHbOOzdce7I3VnxP2xE4IWvufTKZrNXXkHgmnHUJetiq2J0gi8LsM=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:cac8:: with SMTP id m8mr19683028ilq.168.1597079309789; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200127221705.GB17622@pfrc.org> <20200616211057.GA21373@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmXk_-gnuyUYwbSwkfiBSvUnX77G2m5M4bkDsYQiHYjqbw@mail.gmail.com> <E2C152D4-AA4C-4CC8-BAD1-13FF007552E6@pfrc.org> <20200720213734.GC25102@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmViC-rxZC=iwAzLAq0YOOo7PT_6fby9mwc0WEM+m4B6TA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmViC-rxZC=iwAzLAq0YOOo7PT_6fby9mwc0WEM+m4B6TA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:08:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEHAYwveDk0=PQ4Va-0P+Pebgn=PtD+MVXJV7FibSkgUaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BFD for vxlan Destination MAC field (was Re: draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan IESG status)
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org, bfd-chairs@ietf.org
Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/bKmateG_NXlCGKKdq1bBVgf0oGw>
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, 10 Aug 2020 17:08:32 -0000

Hi,

My apologies for not responding earlier in this thread.

IANA originally contacted me as a Designated Expert for MAC addresses
under the IANA OUI last year in connection with version -07. At that
time, I approved an assignment for this draft. I'm fine with any
reasonable usage description the WG comes up with for this MAC address
whether more or less generic. (Usage of a MAC address reserved for
documentation would not be appropriate)

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:55 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff,
> do you think that the record in the Usage filed for the requested MAC address instead of "BFD over VXLAN" be more generic, e.g., "Active OAM over NVO3"?
> What do you think?
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 2:26 PM Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 03:52:14PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>> > >> Proposed solution: A MAC value should be chosen that is well known and the
>> > >> text would become:
>> > >>
>> > >> "Destination MAC: A Management VNI, which does not have any tenants, will
>> > >> have no dedicated MAC address for decapsulated traffic.  The value
>> > >> X:X:X:X:X
>> > >> SHOULD be used in this field."
>> > >>
>> > >> SHOULD might need to be MUST.  Since a partial motivation for permitting
>> > >> the
>> > >> flexibility in the specification to NOT use the management VNI is desired=
>> > > ,
>> > >> MUST might be inappropriate.
>> > >>
>> > > GIM>> Accepted the suggested text. I agree that the flexibility to not use
>> > > the Management VNI is permitted in the specification and thus SHOULD in the
>> > > text is consistent with that scenario. How would we pick the MAC address?
>> >
>> > I am out of my area of expertise and I was hoping someone in the IESG can offer a fix. :-)  I am copying Donald Eastlake since he's the designated expert for the IANA MAC address block.
>> >
>> > Donald, review of the thread may be useful, but tersely the need is to have a well known MAC address that can be placed in this vxlan PDU that is literally a placeholder of "not to be used for forwarding".  The packet arrives at the endpoint and, if not immediately accepted, would be dropped.
>> >
>> > If there is no well known MAC that could be used for such a behavior, perhaps an address from the IANA block may be used?
>> >
>> > While I suspect the IANA mac documentation range could be used, IANA may not appreciate that.
>>
>> Donald is not responding to emails.  Considering I've been similarly bad
>> about responding, that's forgivable.  However, in the interest of advancing
>> the document, I'd like to make a proposal.
>>
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers/ethernet-numbers.xhtml
>>
>> Proposed text:
>>
>> : Destination MAC: A Management VNI, which does not have any tenants, will
>> : have no dedicated MAC address for decapsulated traffic.  The value
>> : [TBD1] SHOULD be used in this field.
>> :
>> : IANA Considerations:
>> :
>> : IANA is requested to assign a single MAC address to the value TBD1 from the
>> : "IANA Unicast 48-bit MAC Address" registry from the "Unassigned (small
>> : allocations)" block.  The Usage field will be "BFD for vxlan" with a
>> : Reference field of this document.
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Jeff