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

Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 09:43 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 82DCD120C38; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 01:43:28 -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 oRmoLh8_0OsY; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 01:43:26 -0800 (PST)
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 ABDFF120B6A; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 01:43:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32f.google.com with SMTP id c17so8469833wmk.2; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 01:43:25 -0800 (PST)
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=ck+Apk7TlT5/zFdBn8K5b7GDWg+Avb1L32L/fBn0IB0=; b=pXX4/Gbd2bTMMucnX8kmbXtF/0ZoEPUNAepUPPIDPomXuGLiKI9LvfTQyZ8oWVWOyf ulgRnoT6miC5bkU8HPtResN9n4E6gHS3Saq5zzbW2j3RqwuCmcHE7yT+gb7A+9HH5Xas SkJDyjh31p6UV3ulV/5Ilg/MEErntKpAm6HvgtBJmzwEooR869d/9WVXc9FI9ai2dnpe OKoFz902FVWaaa5AywyR/Y2VKn1I/BdqROYXRR7wlxeEF+a2tCe6WlaKMz4249K2RWqy uzs35MpS2WFo0X1CLJHaVqbJ+jV2e/4WULdDZ1JuLFrmUD5KxWkk8geOMW0sdhdpArcK rqSQ==
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=ck+Apk7TlT5/zFdBn8K5b7GDWg+Avb1L32L/fBn0IB0=; b=kQFLnRyUteCI+2KP2C9nSr3H1wUaOl9KSLrYRWSF52rRbFNDNmHBa8RB30q1MEUErr 6AYRVL2kB+OeT7+cpXwVa5Ge6YJ8eFSsox3GgT8zZkHSRQGd1EteUNXl9p76JuRbckqU SDpGjorVCzwAvZJBNyOuRFU9dZ9AudP3Oa+LQ2IxTJyrU7oMMHHf3O7S17vxYURShPQ1 0J62OyEhLR9Qh8gPvA+MBGGmn70Jhx+ibK2A2Q4x2V86PlYCCa4ptlX4FE75D2fRQunk 6m2zeh9QYOU4RO3577COlrZLFiELux7s2kXhDAJV/3q0IqF0il6lAKu0QhBiOxLMrvbH WDRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV0bYz7XBKE3MvtF8gJk4zwVOsyekL9CC+UP3GKGACE3gjH03JG tYj5Pj9t8YgUva+MIZtN5P7r9sYEd66IQmfk1lY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxFW08Vk4b1h+HDOcuZHol0ODDGcoGQwPlb2G5ymVhoFNdNj5lCyJ9xIYPn/zfDeMP2hhadgtorPnYUXVb+ePU=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:a9cb:: with SMTP id s194mr23368497wme.92.1572860604030; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 01:43:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <20191029205651.GA10145@pfrc.org>
From: Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 15:13:12 +0530
Message-ID: <CACi9rdt83JXc=yEEUYQEoGSv+VSMeOnM5Z2E_Q-fe=O6iHv6Gg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>, Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com>, 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
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000095a395059682255f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/i83dRZomNEt9lxetQQoAYOb7x_U>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 10:32:48 -0800
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 09:43:31 -0000

Jeff,
   Sorry for delayed response. I was on vacation and returned today and
trying to catch up with discussion here. Please see my inline response
[SPK].


On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:23 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"?


> 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.
>

[SPK] Agreed. I will take a look at updated version and we can change these
wordings.

>
> Similarly, based on this text, we'll get asked about "recommended" vs.
> "RECOMMENDED".  What level of strength do you think we should have here?
>
[SPK] Agreed. Will change it.

>
>
> -- Jeff
>