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

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Tue, 22 October 2019 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@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 721C21200F1; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:17:46 -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 qVXhQqVBlu4D; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (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 B16A31200F5; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id a22so18230919ljd.0; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:17:43 -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=tXejom0Ax/qVCo0RSKDO+I0p8Bf07fR9/k9IFyv5xXs=; b=R6VATgy9i7DkzsFLx1rAmv0zrwmR3JaAABS5bPSgX2k3Pnj6/IEj2TXfm+8JYN9oq6 AJ9fmHVq+epwaODZUWnuYhC58XpqI8r3btiHQP1NJ/vo2Iv4QhfsGOrLYvFpUjrjFRGd JTIZ1gwVulX0W+WruyMqarhpZwm7Yp7zJTmiB41+NW+mhFUUMAYxLVERS54HkerQf3wn nUCXzIw+u/o6Yh3awnlWsZZc26dULoqo6XHIWtCRsXhNyTSbxATDPMGnevfAibt/plDb Z5HD6D575oLEgxxMse1muOgkhB2Qf2ngWciqCnFC26vsIuGCq8saDGOgAld9v2kkGmy3 ck4A==
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=tXejom0Ax/qVCo0RSKDO+I0p8Bf07fR9/k9IFyv5xXs=; b=mNxJ/kzNHHYMUHI+VZ9IRC7vW2OuhkH+OuC5uwiZGbxzlnypHLAcFpdybrCTdrdJCB qDGcRgZlde31ZA58toEf/hOHYXFYuEfu7QOsIDa36n231oMqFAtV7+ZEGCSe1pvUpvSN 8E4dqUX0sHGiVEPOSKbTjtzP8XWquSc/d+cT7jyk+XZD4kknZcDT7/AGXdz8HmxyITM7 MXZrlA0qbbkBXINL0ZVkmRnQuJXTl76iDQUT0uZhCGzY1ckT4J+6iV/3aoorH22MF3XB +OJS7JvY4bb47aHB3MaMzS6MuvbizehsFyvKvjstrvKDzCOF/1BBpNne/Uk57Adx5FYt 2m1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVV5yyUSp6RdchsgmWF1LJi8mXIy2ath/BTy6jJkv4Qdgmroq+g Jv5bYYqvVIF6g6DOl4xphmdsJePAa0H+FoFjtaQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy+x3TrAYfnQTbCVi5IBjOYL2IrcfzUYkKWYp3/sQAWsQiZzenQi0G6ojZyXUChO4PspKfO6AdVNvemdFJoQ44=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9b8a:: with SMTP id z10mr19363262lji.66.1571768261742; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:17:41 -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>
In-Reply-To: <CA+-tSzziDc+Tk8AYfOr5-Xn6oO_uqW2C1dRA9LLOBBVmzVhWEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:17:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmVcBgeoGc2z5Gv0grv8OY34tyw+T-T-W2vn1O3AxCSQ9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>, NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org, Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com>, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "T. Sridhar" <tsridhar@vmware.com>, xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e91860059583d06a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/e5FDl5wn_Zfg3avH7k9rYN4CoHU>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:45:06 -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: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 18:17:47 -0000

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
>>
>