Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> Mon, 28 October 2019 14:51 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 7BCFA120866; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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] 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 AXDJ9yDhVu-C; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32f.google.com (mail-wm1-x32f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32f]) (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 23E9C120863; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32f.google.com with SMTP id w9so9446441wmm.5; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:51:27 -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=R6tkACu8XBWsTtRqHzs/ms1BBPBNTYXXyo8JmVaM0oI=; b=r6XNvXVnRx48bq8CvmI8W7g1uyaXoX6jRmQNnK0y+bUYf9dU8Br14NHz2s2V1JhPEc 8qU53GlJLLeHGGq0iZ35Gz50h72Sjzfs2veNFUKa7P+yp7+FvPcPw5Sqj+BoVQGXjA9z RzNtNc7Lx5lU6eAX9+ieFtTmyZGHrImp/J0c2NJIjEmp+wJ53sU453+7RInY8Wyu/9xE Md/MP269XKsOAjKbJIDjr6NfkmUUP6kjgBtmT2ySHG5XJw0lczQQqNLS1MOYJi13xjPJ t2DGvC1OyU7eaPUcTJN+vA8XRycPjkZnsUl8w2hJknDcL3ee5pUip+oWlzfdh9AmmgUM e5Kg==
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=R6tkACu8XBWsTtRqHzs/ms1BBPBNTYXXyo8JmVaM0oI=; b=j31ix3U4pTBTW07WIlllvvALdbvSw97iJHWRdtRnxb/w8UrAOUPZo2anAEr1GdmupZ fah+fzNmBxpSB0CcWwx6Fsb8l+S5wRnQCYTcyodhOxGYXOdtWvibpQWJ1kS66E3tNBZo NKQ7EXTT8jWcqGlobGP/qqj++svaka1txr5hqrON1IUmElxXSuCnAuijKWxDnypaf/0+ kGG4eWhifPbG8a3cGhODVP+buw3cI2wZSMVQmt4E3DZdSoZhLwVYGNBY5K+sPXPqiNtr jlykdUs2t4MSzxrfsDJMEGnH7O8/jqrXMHGb1YUHF1kPfHsJS/ZKgbHvMglFt3K8Qnhr x3Pg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWGEdubNfVCBcQIt/98ZZ+FbKRM8tVvcFKHzyzGEgK0/eYibepp y8/hjPd0payK9iIb8zmHF8EMVt/5cS80s9s0rdM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx2qV3ujGgYUMiWc6d121FLQEErPL88f5BvNPJ7K11OTnB/7R34YGhmdbK/zffYfiXRFN+O3Jxcu7SgTq+f9po=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:a9cb:: with SMTP id s194mr393458wme.92.1572274285347; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:51:25 -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> <CACi9rduyvhweJd_aNx6miiUGyu-nCeqnNHGbPjyCfswHx1RD5A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXLBLARxhA4MUvD6DE8vvY1oDP0opkxDqiPA4zYw9Jpug@mail.gmail.com> <1571860470.2855.11@smtp.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1571860470.2855.11@smtp.gmail.com>
From: Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 20:21:13 +0530
Message-ID: <CACi9rdtwiuH2VjuUkzeg3+PhwcFMSqFepbcM0tgmRxSbcR3AQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
To: Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>, "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="0000000000004486cf0595f9a24d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/eDzZoqk91chPa4BrvLDND3Pje_M>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:29:00 -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: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 14:51:32 -0000
Dinesh, Anoop et all, Lets us know if this text works for 127/8 address range? [proposed text for firewall] "As per section 4 inner destination IP address MUST be set to 127/8 address. There may 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 127/8 IP address is set as destination address in inner IP header." In section 4 we are talking about using 127/8 and not really giving reason why. I think we should have text as RFC 5884 has mentioned with below text. [From RFC 5884] " The motivation for using the address range 127/8 is the same as specified in Section 2.1 of [RFC4379] <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4379#section-2.1>. This is an exception to the behavior defined in [RFC1122 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122>]." Thanks Santosh P K On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 1:24 AM Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com> wrote: > Looks good to me Greg. I see that the text around the use of the inner IP > address as also quite acceptable. Will you add any words about the firewall? > > Dinesh > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 8:36 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Dinesh, et al., > please check the updated version that removed the reference to Hypervisor > in the text and Figure 1. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:47 AM Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Dinesh, >> Please see my inline comments [SPK] >> >>> >>> - 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. >>> >>> [SPK] Thanks for comments. We will change this. >> >> >>> - 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. >>> >> >> [SPK] I think we may need to add the text about firewall as some checks >> in firewall will be there if they are not already using MPLS OAM which has >> inner IP header with 127/8 address range. >> >> >>> >>> 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