Re: BFD for vxlan Destination MAC field (was Re: draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan IESG status)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Donald,
many thanks for your clarification. Will wait for the IESG review of the
current version.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 1:52 PM Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> You shouldn't put a specific MAC address in the draft until it is
> assigned in the IANA registry.
>
> Requests that only appear in drafts don't take effect until the draft
> is approved but if assignment policy for the registry does not require
> IESG approval of a draft (for example, First Come First Served or
> Expert Review) you can send a request to IANA (see template in
> Appendix A.1 of RFC 7042) and then, after IANA has assigned a value,
> put it into a draft. Assignment of one or a small block of 48-bit MAC
> addresses is a slight variation on Expert Review (see Section 2.1.3 of
> RFC 7042).
>
> However, this document seems far enough along in the process that I'm
> not sure a separate request for the assignment (which would probably
> be referred to me and I would approve) would be worth it.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
>  [e-mail]
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 3:38 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jeff,
> > to update the IANA considerations section by replacing TBD1 with the
> actual MAC address? I see two small allocation ranges for in the Unicast
> MAC addresses:
> > 00-52-02 to 00-52-12 Unassigned (small allocations)
> > ....
> > 00-52-14 to 00-52-FF Unassigned (small allocations)
> >
> > Also, can we change the wording in the Reference column from "BFD over
> VXLAN" to "Control channel in NVO3"? That would be helpful to the work on
> OAM in Geneve.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:14 PM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you, Donald.
> >>
> >> Greg, would you bump the draft with this assignment?
> >>
> >> -- Jeff
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Aug 10, 2020, at 1:08 PM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > My apologies for not responding earlier in this thread.
> >> >
> >> > IANA originally contacted me as a Designated Expert for MAC addresses
> >> > under the IANA OUI last year in connection with version -07. At that
> >> > time, I approved an assignment for this draft. I'm fine with any
> >> > reasonable usage description the WG comes up with for this MAC address
> >> > whether more or less generic. (Usage of a MAC address reserved for
> >> > documentation would not be appropriate)
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Donald
> >> > ===============================
> >> > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
> >> > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
> >> > [e-mail]
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:55 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Jeff,
> >> >> do you think that the record in the Usage filed for the requested
> MAC address instead of "BFD over VXLAN" be more generic, e.g., "Active OAM
> over NVO3"?
> >> >> What do you think?
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Greg
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 2:26 PM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 03:52:14PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Proposed solution: A MAC value should be chosen that is well
> known and the
> >> >>>>>> text would become:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> "Destination MAC: A Management VNI, which does not have any
> tenants, will
> >> >>>>>> have no dedicated MAC address for decapsulated traffic.  The
> value
> >> >>>>>> X:X:X:X:X
> >> >>>>>> SHOULD be used in this field."
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> SHOULD might need to be MUST.  Since a partial motivation for
> permitting
> >> >>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>> flexibility in the specification to NOT use the management VNI
> is desired=
> >> >>>>> ,
> >> >>>>>> MUST might be inappropriate.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>> GIM>> Accepted the suggested text. I agree that the flexibility
> to not use
> >> >>>>> the Management VNI is permitted in the specification and thus
> SHOULD in the
> >> >>>>> text is consistent with that scenario. How would we pick the MAC
> address?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I am out of my area of expertise and I was hoping someone in the
> IESG can offer a fix. :-)  I am copying Donald Eastlake since he's the
> designated expert for the IANA MAC address block.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Donald, review of the thread may be useful, but tersely the need
> is to have a well known MAC address that can be placed in this vxlan PDU
> that is literally a placeholder of "not to be used for forwarding".  The
> packet arrives at the endpoint and, if not immediately accepted, would be
> dropped.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> If there is no well known MAC that could be used for such a
> behavior, perhaps an address from the IANA block may be used?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> While I suspect the IANA mac documentation range could be used,
> IANA may not appreciate that.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Donald is not responding to emails.  Considering I've been
> similarly bad
> >> >>> about responding, that's forgivable.  However, in the interest of
> advancing
> >> >>> the document, I'd like to make a proposal.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers/ethernet-numbers.xhtml
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Proposed text:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> : Destination MAC: A Management VNI, which does not have any
> tenants, will
> >> >>> : have no dedicated MAC address for decapsulated traffic.  The value
> >> >>> : [TBD1] SHOULD be used in this field.
> >> >>> :
> >> >>> : IANA Considerations:
> >> >>> :
> >> >>> : IANA is requested to assign a single MAC address to the value
> TBD1 from the
> >> >>> : "IANA Unicast 48-bit MAC Address" registry from the "Unassigned
> (small
> >> >>> : allocations)" block.  The Usage field will be "BFD for vxlan"
> with a
> >> >>> : Reference field of this document.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -- Jeff
> >>
>