Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> Mon, 28 October 2019 16:54 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 000F9120098; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 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, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01] 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 4-CVo5nnZkk9; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42c.google.com (mail-wr1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (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 D9A7E12009C; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id r1so10659667wrs.9; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:54:19 -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=eG8SL1XFgjyV956vJAdhj2Qqk0UBVFUDq5Y9m0KiITo=; b=OCcubMeG3hCF562TaNxs/IoFxghAzZA4dt/lP8+nwpNhXgNBVOgrwkQQXzcp3iTYub VRdDJSbikZiIBqvmq7ti8oUKy7BdxJEIy5PUzFvigGTp+SgD6UGV9fusXr0iabqcIofL uEcAjbuqHO2u/g3X2YS6ZEGWeMCnal6U/oOV5AVnStH9CKFRXTQR1sutLvzC5jQ92UB9 fi2dOhsctQJqUImxuTMWTc+nUw/jnxX5XQQPjBPaOK69FgrTQxCA9AMX8svZdWvKWrGp qShFHWuSMOu5/puezG1hz/nCvVQchXWcL+yDmOJmvdt4nqBtxxYJRkGRrIigv6xBAde+ 7ujQ==
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=eG8SL1XFgjyV956vJAdhj2Qqk0UBVFUDq5Y9m0KiITo=; b=UTCPrJSgw/xXbgIT4MbsSPtwZD8KiB+tRlSFUcvD6zFv48FkXkoUSNfLjZqdDis330 lY3qMTI+qJ/lFNNUxh7WFDCWNO3yr5d5806EiE3f4TRBDadM0v8dZCKHJtj39eNZmvao hOscKU/A2jE+YR0qnsRSaBlHb4dbz/euxJ57ZwQ7GDz6U0r9gap+RPDvn+onYD+ka8Ds axc8hlm3RaAef7WhdVq0lZ3/KLQWrS+nV7iEi+WbAb9ruVtyCTdBvS62M9mdAZoP+Fg5 kk21eZBf8pNCgTeZ3eEvgGpR98X1QrfrBp3D6eLdwCyPF9vkuIXHp9ilWg6Tly/m/XPn vPmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV1orsZk0cOLZnbBx7JjP0OHhi2bmMEESu0xvjuUIOhy2JbB8uD 0/6Zf9/JelZNew8KSSPkAe0kVUeFILPsU0PzvI8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw4eeucL8vq1o1aEaSf1+ju661y6tES0zSNMYz2bGQxIiH7OS5R+LWIupt8mIChN6U9qTNgnQaGzBqRsDI+oD8=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:b602:: with SMTP id f2mr2279726wre.49.1572281658249; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:54:18 -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> <CACi9rdtwiuH2VjuUkzeg3+PhwcFMSqFepbcM0tgmRxSbcR3AQQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+-tSzyi=uDdqSDq4u7kytAucX136mO2XtPtR=DG+KKAC5PjCQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+-tSzyi=uDdqSDq4u7kytAucX136mO2XtPtR=DG+KKAC5PjCQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 22:24:06 +0530
Message-ID: <CACi9rdsLYuf9_v-uNZ8SLW+sif+O9wNjjHvNu2xQrTuWxJfyOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Cc: Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "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="000000000000ba16220595fb59ce"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/jAcz3l7hTGECsDTWOXcv_2r8-10>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:38:17 -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 16:54:24 -0000
Anoop, You are right and Greg did remind me and it skipped my mind my bad. [Current text in section 4.0] IP header: Destination IP: IP address MUST NOT be of one of tenant's IP addresses. IP address MAY be selected from the range 127/8 for IPv4, for IPv6 - from the range 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104. [proposed] IP header: Destination IP: IP address MUST NOT be of one of tenant's IP addresses. IP address MAY be set to VTEP IP address or it MAY be selected from the range 127/8 for IPv4, for IPv6 - from the range 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104. 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>]. [proposed text for firewall] "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." Thanks Santosh P K On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 9:53 PM Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: > Santosh, > > Does it have to be a MUST? What if I am running IRB and there are IP > addresses per VNI assigned to the VTEPs? Why can the operator not choose > to use those? > > Anoop > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 7:51 AM Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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