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

[Anoop Ghanwani <[e-mail]>]

Hi Xiao Min,

I think we would need more detail around the use case below.  What does the
MPLS packet over Tunnel look like?

Thanks,
Anoop

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 11:37 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Anoop,
>
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Considering a scenario where TS1 has an MPLS access (i.e. MPLS-Packet over
> Tunnel between NVEs) to VNI1, TS3 has an Ethernet access (i.e. MAC-Frame
> over Tunnel between NVEs) to VNI1, then how can TS1 and TS3 share one VAP?
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Xiao Min
> 原始邮件
> *发件人：*AnoopGhanwani <[e-mail]>
> *收件人：*肖敏10093570;
> *抄送人：*Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;rtg-bfd WG <
> [e-mail]>;Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;
> *日 期 ：*2019年09月26日 08:36
> *主 题 ：**Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP*
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>
> >>>
> Some people may argue that all Tenant Systems connecting to the same
> Virtual Network MUST share one VAP, if that's true, then VAP1 and VAP3
> should merge into one VAP and my explanation doesn't work. Copying to NVO3
> WG to involve more experts, hope for your clarifications and comments.
> >>>
>
> I would be one of those that would argue that they MUST share on VAP if
> they connect to the same Virtual Network.  IMO, the NVO3 arch doc should
> have been clearer about this.
>
> Thanks,
> Anoop
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 7:40 PM <[e-mail]> 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.
>>
>>
>> Of course, in RFC8014 it also says:
>>
>> "Note that two different Tenant Systems (and TSIs) attached to a common NVE can share a VAP (e.g., TS1 and TS2 in Figure 2) so long as they connect to the same Virtual Network."
>>
>> Some people may argue that all Tenant Systems connecting to the same
>> Virtual Network MUST share one VAP, if that's true, then VAP1 and VAP3
>> should merge into one VAP and my explanation doesn't work. Copying to NVO3
>> WG to involve more experts, hope for your clarifications and comments.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Xiao Min
>>
>
>