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

Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 06:05 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 9B51D120096; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 22:05:29 -0800 (PST)
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 k6pLUDL7tKzY; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 22:05:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x442.google.com (mail-pf1-x442.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::442]) (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 CDF8412000F; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 22:05:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x442.google.com with SMTP id 3so11421623pfb.10; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 22:05:27 -0800 (PST)
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=FwTiUEOTfYOS9oTcZVqXagLKE7eCMUmCVASEood6YAM=; b=g3cJSUnrPGMpUY4wfZuJqCCPaWya5TltSazyGrqPxVzZdlooCf6qEV1QhaO2+n8Fu4 the/p76ZY6vIZtGWJElI1UfxeCUAT6Xo+BCUbifNobZ3IQl2nG3vPWkAoqlMYdiiw5dS k2zybWXGu/CfUf5KJAfjSeEst1P1lNYfYzuaGQoNGJA8U0jxoYhFYHw31VyZFW4F+jiI E/dJhjUtYj9gYQYju5d7auXxqPDSn4U9iIR0jV7rPzslmGMrLgDHn2Rtsd+XQKCAU31i YrGEawrSC0nKblSMok1ImWLZG9bkG5znb7QqaUj5oyZ6BG5YDex2FKLcYV78GzXHJ+LL oV/A==
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=FwTiUEOTfYOS9oTcZVqXagLKE7eCMUmCVASEood6YAM=; b=gBIfeod61Sfm8vJh2yr6ERGcTPNgkB6/Uz4eL6WkqaHkWgZ3DWCD8bniTtwJeMCYAk P4v1ZE6S73HC0paLz0+RGC1IL+XdpSOcQFgMGfufwkKPCLvcnXaT8TglwtStfLmdK+sy wIY3+/zxsKbVATJywaMEAsuWScPsxuNQwKM8b46zfzW7m3nmR2Jl8fddFfdvRIJbQfGp 2O621fSvRMYllWEAeMdtSmFQjO24D7N/dBwjfsDlKOgFDLa8ZFg1TcbxVHJ8L0AuRmmD QNwrgDWY7p+XudOeKPAZMgk1Bmp1zTKJrOPNuGwyBNvRnLdjBqLUwMY1OxLdSk+fgR1y RnXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWrBD0Uccs1zZ7apM0zQZt8o+8zzu6ci5sjpbavu/zx4gKavGeR q/FhTaboAd1Xanb2QUQfSiHiDu025MI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzhXCjKhT9DeuzQkxgCkeo1uU9LFXqvrrtWqvIzlzsG4inx/RXdZ0tZURPbwV0MtwsxXIRXbQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:eb04:: with SMTP id j4mr11883186pjz.80.1572847527234; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 22:05:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.105] ([61.2.196.166]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b26sm17412900pgs.93.2019.11.03.22.05.24 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 03 Nov 2019 22:05:26 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 11:05:22 +0500
From: Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-08.txt
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <1572847522.25948.3@smtp.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <13b756b6-4a3f-e128-aeef-214e48727c6c@joelhalpern.com>
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> <1572840465.25948.2@smtp.gmail.com> <13b756b6-4a3f-e128-aeef-214e48727c6c@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: geary/0.12.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-nvjxewAyZSx5Hhl2eerE"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/cQqaqgzYXglZtypjUyz0mb1Zgd4>
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 06:05:30 -0000

Hi Joel,

I'm comfortable if we fixed a MAC addresss such as 0a:0a:0a:0a:0a:0a 
(or whatever else) for the maagement VNI. That fixes the additional 
burden of configuring BFD for the management VNI. Requiring another 
forwarding behavior for a VNI is additional overhead and *may* not be 
supported by existing implementations.

Dinesh

On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:45 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; 
wrote:
> Are you referring to the Ethernet MAC addresses that the VTEP 
> probably has on its underlay physical network?  I can see why those 
> would be good candidates to use on the management VNI.  What I do not 
> see is why we want to require it?  Using those would seem to 
> complicate configuring BFD, since as far as I know those addresses 
> are not known to remote VTEPs.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 11/3/2019 11:07 PM, Dinesh Dutt wrote:
>> While I agree that there are no tenant MACs on a management VNI, I'm 
>> loathe to introduce another forwarding behavior, one that's 
>> VNI-specific. MUST use a MAC thats owned by the VTEP is all that's 
>> required. All VTEPs, existing and past work with this, because 
>> that's the VTEP decapsulate and forward behavior.
>> 
>> Dinesh
>> 
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:22 AM, 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: