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

Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Wed, 30 October 2019 06:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ghanwani@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 DE430120089; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 23:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 5sgN9hopPD8G; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 23:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-f50.google.com (mail-vs1-f50.google.com [209.85.217.50]) (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 79674120044; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 23:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-f50.google.com with SMTP id q21so931290vsg.3; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 23:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
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=pcWKYALJb1mWQNYwspQskuXp3cGIQc9DUKwIyyEYaEM=; b=YCySMU3LApWrzbblwOrOIu/okdV4V6rdF0SELT8SGm6Kjx7i2l/DbDtaJe7Hd8ugXj otHyUhKRhceZiSTOFz/198AaXFCqBvWpITqdLsLXrZ6s/6ubZX0nuckGZiOSVB02aT2Z bnTh3IqPSPBLLecbliBwKJeh4BC8iqfDPEuio/jUCR9FAJ0Ixiu4ihdIZwoYps6H5iji kflmbY5egKA6G7+DhqGHGL9h53wDL1UFQzavbrQ/TebKlcWtwwa5jR/dPLCLRyJr4Pgj fRkgbuoC+4qHaqmqYF2h5LpzSjXM4SzmBhkLlSQuzmoIF1sNCfwrPk8p3cVr7JFLdyaG PDbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU80PKHsWphvWBJ1yPtbx/X1wo8d1We/WwaYZoYHwhNQ7cUYcGv Ij/bveEL7NGryG70n+2fAnSUpJgnkcVUkG6PV3Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy24CePTPc0/0zYZSKIusbuUv6lOfUCIYigfbXd+rrKjX7uemH7yM/csKnyYWnB0BUh4xfXgmqHUjZ39NueAgo=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ea09:: with SMTP id g9mr4213846vso.23.1572415829198; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 23:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACi9rdu8PKsLW_Pq4ww5DEwLL8Bs6Hq1Je_jmAjES4LKBuE8MQ@mail.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> <88a1320e-093a-a101-d8a6-6ae6d7648466@joelhalpern.com> <CA+-tSzxCpLOmhpBXP1k5vLY20qA5db9nbq4qEiH00jo=EH+w8g@mail.gmail.com> <d7b25f3a-5f1e-30da-8a41-0d11e3c2d04c@joelhalpern.com> <CA+-tSzzBfp9Wy8KO6MbxFNXZBhC3bL7u92VwqJTA82WrwGUAgg@mail.gmail.com> <c773cd4f-320c-fb15-3b7b-d0016b7d5978@joelhalpern.com> <CA+-tSzxUs9PGv+y1PBquaAhuq4wK_=TkR+b_ET6j7OBHf4Mq7Q@mail.gmail.com> <97bdb8b4-b334-53fb-05a6-2d1fc8684ad3@joelhalpern.com> <CA+-tSzw76E0AM2AJR=2GQsXJ3MtFUtsug7KoGQzAP-=Ds8u7Fg@mail.gmail.com> <aa853b8e-7ff4-a2d9-9b66-f9c22823ac9d@joelhalpern.com> <1572400778.28051.7@smtp.gmail.com> <CA+-tSzyNu8XVqL7=cGVaT7Mbg5yO6d3ohgv2qPTrMHRV1vw0rg@mail.gmail.com> <1a38424c-6bc1-4414-a7fd-c1e2105b581a@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <1a38424c-6bc1-4414-a7fd-c1e2105b581a@Spark>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 23:10:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzzSNnR=fKRU+mEX=d+tL5B0u8eNUAoGcPvfrna_qHL7Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
To: Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com>
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.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="000000000000f04aaa05961a965e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/jjl_HywKuMZcdzy1OXKKSQAMmCw>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 04:22:37 -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: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 06:10:37 -0000

Hi Dinesh,

Your earlier comment was about silicon, that's why I discussed only the
trapping issue.  As far as software goes, IP stacks would typically discard
packets received from a non-loopback interface if the packet's address is
in 127/8.  I am not sure a traditional IP stack can play here because even
on Tx, we have the same MAC for reaching all remote VTEPs.  It seems to me
the BFD module would have to be working directly with L2 frames coming off
the tunnel.  Kind of like if we were running LLDP between the VTEPs.

Thanks,
Anoop

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:02 PM Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com> wrote:

> Trapping to the CPU would be fine based on MAC DA. But once there, a
> self-respecting network stack would look at the IP header to decide what to
> do. Ignoring it on receive may not be an option,
>
> Dinesh
> On Oct 30, 2019, 10:26 AM +0530, Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>du>,
> wrote:
>
> Hi Dinesh,
>
> What would break?  If messages are trapped to CPU based on the MAC DA,
> what is the problem?
>
> On the flip side, there are implementations running BFD today which use
> different addresses as specified here:
> http://www.openvswitch.org/support/dist-docs/vtep.5.html
> >>>
>
>        *b**f**d**_**c**o**n**f**i**g**_**l**o**c**a**l* *:* *b**f**d**_**d**s**t**_**i**p*: optional string
>               Set to an IPv4 address to set the IP address that is expected as
>               destination   for   received   BFD   packets.   The  default  is
>               *1**6**9**.**2**5**4**.**1**.**0*.
>
> >>>
>
> Thanks,
> Anoop
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 7:01 PM Dinesh Dutt <didutt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I suspect silicon implementations will have a problem with saying that
>> they can be set to anything and MUST be ignored on reception. Your logic is
>> sound, it's just that I fear you'll break many existing implementations. I
>> recommend sticking with the 127/8 address for this case.
>>
>> Dinesh
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 9:15 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> In all the discussion about what VNI to use and multiple VNI support, I
>> lsot track. Sorry. Still, the earlier documents did not specify the IP to
>> use. That does NOT mean that we are required in later revisions of the
>> document to allow anything the client wants. Having said that, we could add
>> text saying that since the IP address in the BFD request in VNI 0 is
>> effectively meaningless, it can be set to any value on transmission and
>> must be ignored on reception. As far as I can tell, it is definitional that
>> the VtEP does not have any assigned IP address for VNI 0, so we can't
>> expect that address. Yours, Joel On 10/29/2019 11:10 AM, Anoop Ghanwani
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Joel, Yes, existing implementations use VNI 0 for BFD over VXLAN.
>> Here are a couple of references:
>> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/sdn-ovsdb-bfd-nsx.html
>> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/nexus-9000-series-switches/white-paper-c11-740091.html#_Toc18013665
>> I guess this document has been evolving and I have not kept up with it. The
>> version I had reviewed and commented on originally allowed for VNI 0.  The
>> -04 version of the draft has this:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-04#section-7 What
>> version are you referring to? Thanks, Anoop On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 12:55
>> PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com
>> <jmh@joelhalpern.com>>> wrote: You are saying that there are existing
>> implementations using VNI 0 for this?  Given that previous versions of the
>> spec explicitly disallowed VNI 0, I am having trouble with your objecting
>> that a spec for how to run over VNI 0 breask existing implementations. Note
>> that when there is a good technical reason, the IETF does change Internet
>> Drafts in ways that break early implementations.  That is the price of
>> standardization. Yours, Joel On 10/28/2019 2:30 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: >
>> Hi Joel, > > Writing the spec in that way would make the current,
>> inter-operable > implementation of multiple vendors non-compliant with the
>> spec. > > Thanks, > Anoop > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 11:07 AM Joel M.
>> Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com
>> <jmh@joelhalpern.com>> > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com
>> <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>>
>> wrote: > >     I assumed this was only for the case where a tenant VNI was
>> being used. > >     For the 0 VNI (which is what I prefer), always (MUST)
>> use the loopback >     address.  There are no addresses assigned to the
>> VTEP in that space. >     There is no IRB in that space. > >     Yours, >
>>    Joel > >     On 10/28/2019 1:58 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: >      > Joel,
>> >      > >      > Are we going to qualify this by VNI?  There's a bunch of
>> >     implementations >      > out there that don't use a tenant IP or a
>> loopback with VNI 0--they >      > simply repeat the underlay IP in the
>> inner IPDA. >      > >      > Thanks, >      > Anoop >      > >      > On
>> Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:46 AM Joel M. Halpern >     <jmh@joelhalpern.com
>> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>>> >      > <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>>> wrote: >      > >
>>     >     I can live with saying that you SHOULD use loopback, and MAY >
>>  instead >      >     use >      >     an IP address in the customer space
>> known to be owned by the VTEP >      >     device >      >     when such
>> exists. >      > >      >     Yours, >      >     Joel >      > >      >
>>  On 10/28/2019 1:32 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: >      >      > Hi Joel, >
>>   >      > >      >      > Perhaps we need to say use of an address owned
>> by the device >      >     containing >      >      > the VTEP. >      >
>>   > >      >      > Or are you suggesting that the use of the loopback
>> address >     space >      >     is a MUST? >      >      > >      >      >
>> Anoop >      >      > >      >      > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:22 AM Joel
>> M. Halpern >      >     <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com
>> <jmh@joelhalpern.com>> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>>> >     <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>> >      >      > <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>>> >     <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>>>> wrote: >      >
>>   > >      >      >     There is something I am missing in your assumption
>> >     about IRB. >      >      > >      >      >     As I understand VxLAN,
>> the VTEP is under the control >     of the >      >     operator. >      >
>>     >     As such, it is a pure bridge.  If you run IRB behind >     it,
>> that >      >     is fine. >      >      >     Yes, an operator may offer
>> IRB.  But as I understand it, >      >     conceptually, >      >      >
>>  in terms of the VxLAN architecture the IRB is an entity >      >
>>  behind the >      >      >     VTEP, >      >      >     not part of the
>> VTEP. >      >      > >      >      >     Yours, >      >      >     Joel
>> >      >      > >      >      >     On 10/28/2019 12:23 PM, Anoop Ghanwani
>> 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
>> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> >
>>    <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>> >
>>     >     <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>>> >
>>     >      >     <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>> >
>>     >     <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>>>>
>> >      >      >     <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>> >
>>     >     <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>>> >
>>     >      >     <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>> >
>>     >     <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <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>gt;. >      >     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 <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>> <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com>>> >     <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>>>> >
>> >      >     <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>>> >     <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com>> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>>>>> >      >      >      >
>>  <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com>> >     <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>>> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com>>>> >      >     <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>> <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com>>> >     <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <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 <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> >     <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> >      >     <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>>> >     <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> >      >     <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>>>> >      >      >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>>> >      >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <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 <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> >
>>  <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>> >
>>     >     <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>>> >
>>     >      >     <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>> >
>>     >     <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>>>>
>> >      >      >      >>  <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>> >
>>     >     <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>>> >
>>     >      >     <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>> >
>>     >     <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
>> <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <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 <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> >     <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> >      >     <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>>> >      >      >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>>>> >      >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>>> >      >      >
>>    <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <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 <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com>> >     <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>>> >      >     <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com>> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>>>> >     <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com>> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>>> >      >     <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com>> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>>>>> >      >      >     <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com>> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>>> >     <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com>> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>>>> >      >     <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com>> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com>>> >     <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com
>> <didutt@gmail.com>> <mailto:didutt@gmail.com <didutt@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:didutt@gmail.com <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 <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu
>> <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> >     <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu
>> <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu
>> <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>> >      >     <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu
>> <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu
>> <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu
>> <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu
>> <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>>> >      >      >     <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> >     <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> >     <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>>>> >      >
>> >      >>>  <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> >     <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>> >      >     <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>>> >      >      >
>>    <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> >     <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>> >      >     <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> >     <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <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 <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> >     <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> >      >     <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>>> >      >      >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>>>> >      >
>> >      >>>> >       <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
>> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> >      >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>>> >      >      >
>>    <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>>> >      >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> >     <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com> <
>> mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com <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 <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>> >      >     <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>>> >      >      >
>>    <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> >     <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> >     <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>>>> >      >
>> >      >>>> >       <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
>> <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>> >      >     <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>>> >      >      >
>>    <mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> >     <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>>> >      >     <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>> >     <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> <
>> mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu <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 <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>>> >     <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>> >      >      >     <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>> >     <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>>> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>> >     <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>>> >      >      >
>>   >>>> >       <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>>> >      >     <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>> >      >      >     <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>> >     <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>>> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com>> >     <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <jmh@joelhalpern.com> <
>> mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <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 <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
>> <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
>> <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
>> <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>>> >      >     <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
>> <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
>> <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
>> <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
>> <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>>>> >      >      >     <
>> mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <
>> mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>> >     <
>> mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <
>> mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>>> <
>> mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <
>> mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>> >     <
>> mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <
>> mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>>>>> >      >      >
>>     >>>> >      >       <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
>> <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
>> <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
>> <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
>> <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>>> >     <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
>> <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
>> <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
>> <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
>> <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>>>> >      >      >     <
>> mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <
>> mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>> >     <
>> mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <
>> mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>>> <
>> mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <
>> mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>> >     <
>> mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <
>> mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <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 <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org
>> <nvo3@ietf.org>> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org> <
>> mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>>> >     <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org
>> <nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>> <
>> mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org
>> <nvo3@ietf.org>>>> >      >     <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org> <
>> mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org
>> <nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>>> >     <
>> mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org
>> <nvo3@ietf.org>> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org> <
>> mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>>>>> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org
>> <nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>> >     <
>> mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org
>> <nvo3@ietf.org>>> >      >     <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org> <
>> mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org
>> <nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>>>> >      >
>> >     <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org
>> <nvo3@ietf.org>> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org> <
>> mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>>> >     <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org
>> <nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>> <
>> mailto:nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org
>> <nvo3@ietf.org>>>>>> >      >      >      >>>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >      >      >      >>>> >
>>     >      > >      > >
>>
>>