Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Wed, 09 October 2019 21:32 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 C9DBD120B33; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 14:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.477
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.172, 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] 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 x1PCJQhUjKoX; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 14:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-f44.google.com (mail-vs1-f44.google.com [209.85.217.44]) (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 96C56120834; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 14:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-f44.google.com with SMTP id w195so2494528vsw.11; Wed, 09 Oct 2019 14:32:52 -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=1yglIPJ6dAMiV+xLMExDvkQJUoYy2tE0daa0ve9oGFA=; b=cNJRRyDAoVdHqDf7xjV5hur8h4AVtqOsNw2mYZhHIS/rOHzsPg06N0R3RxtXOPBSAQ 92HIdHZRlQyPsOhNf6IriOzHH3qX0DHedwViXs2nMg60xMP57uHFjtbaQi8JkXX1+93W tnGtXlvl8u9JM1IiKeHf8tMGg4WLUS2wDD5s/epAiwSCrodr+c0tUP+UFYmC3F+VxKRz oTN2AgOW4FNQt5T+BOLHI8I+jpnguiZpwV6Qx5kjoEuZYx/HDEVJv2Z2ZluEAzAAnkaO HitJyXvU1GQQZhftqFPPp6WPny2tMjh1WtS9p8cNiv8piRNQbGpqBKwHGyVRRtSkHNfu VsEA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXu0puqHkaofWJ1amhdC2oq9dRf0cjcj82YIWAcwkb3tfCYaf6O VaVp0dm1ZgajhicwqFKVX0hpfbIR3QUA55nwGyE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy2Uz47hB62SoyN0BOYJTyeiP+POquj9UDF0d1TmxejWavx8a+hh8DCZHGa5x0DqXkzmJcdDH/rQhx39Ic74e4=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:f2da:: with SMTP id a26mr2117822vsn.60.1570656771630; Wed, 09 Oct 2019 14:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+-tSzzG4aE8VZbGtYLW9M647fkLpcfxzd_FdeXXr7YaXkp6=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201910091409003148473@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <201910091409003148473@zte.com.cn>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 14:32:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzyUWzp-Rzb=GEjEU_OPVAQsH5+7MLMTU2x+zY3Mxi+LTw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
To: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Cc: draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org, nvo3@ietf.org, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000efe915059481065f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/wbxy-3_1NoufPGz0TBOWE3aodaY>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 14:35:35 -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, 09 Oct 2019 21:32:57 -0000
Hi Xiao Min, Normally, I think of a VNI as a broadcast domain. The only way I can make sense of the picture below is to have a separate VNI for each MPLS interface on the NVE. Anoop On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 11:09 PM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: > Hi Anoop, > > > In this use case there is no forwarding happens between the MPLS and > non-MPLS parts, would this use case be prohibited? > > If the answer is yes, then I agree that all Tenant Systems attached to a > common NVE MUST share a VAP so long as they connect to the same VN, > although in RFC8014 it uses "can" but not "MUST". As a result, we should > not allow multiple BFD sessions for the same VNI between two NVEs. > > If the answer is no, then we should allow multiple BFD sessions for the > same VNI between two NVEs. I personally lean to this answer. > > > Best Regards, > > Xiao Min > 原始邮件 > *发件人:*AnoopGhanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> > *收件人:*肖敏10093570; > *抄送人:*Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;didutt@gmail.com < > didutt@gmail.com>;draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org < > draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org>;nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>; > santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd WG < > rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; > tsridhar@vmware.com <tsridhar@vmware.com>; > *日 期 :*2019年10月09日 06:28 > *主 题 :**Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP* > Hi Xiao Min, > The picture doesn't have enough information to explain why they are in the > same VNI, and exactly how forwarding happens between the MPLS and non-MPLS > parts. > > Anoop > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:31 AM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: > >> Hi Anoop, >> >> >> I don't know such a draft that describes MPLS over Geneve, but I believe >> the following figure derived from figure 1 of RFC8014 would help, in the >> following figure Tenant System1, Tenant System2, Tenant System3 and Tenant >> System4 are assumed belonging to the same VNI, so two BFD sessions for the >> same VNI need to be run between NVE1 and NVE2. >> >> +--------+ >> +----| Tenant | >> ( ' ) | System1| >> ................ ( MPLS ) +--------+ >> . . +--+-+ ( _ ) >> . .--|NVE1|---+ >> . . | | >> . . +--+-+ >> . . | >> . L3 Overlay . ( ' ) >> . Network . (Ethernet) >> . . ( _ ) >> . . | >> ................ +--------+ >> | | Tenant | >> +----+ | System2| >> |NVE2| +--------+ >> | |--------+ >> +----+ | >> | | >> ( ' ) ( ' ) >> ( MPLS ) (Ethernet) >> ( _ ) ( _ ) >> | | >> +--------+ +--------+ >> | Tenant | | Tenant | >> | System3| | System4| >> +--------+ +--------+ >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Xiao Min >> 原始邮件 >> *发件人:*AnoopGhanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> >> *收件人:*肖敏10093570; >> *抄送人:*Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;didutt@gmail.com < >> didutt@gmail.com>;draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org < >> draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org>;nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>; >> santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd WG < >> rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; >> tsridhar@vmware.com <tsridhar@vmware.com>; >> *日 期 :*2019年10月08日 12:15 >> *主 题 :**Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP* >> Hi Xiao Min, >> Is there a draft that describes MPLS over Geneve? It sounds like the NVE >> is an MPLS router in this case and if you're using the same VNI as you >> switch MPLS, then it's a one-armed router. That doesn't change how BFD >> needs to be run between NVEs. >> >> Anoop >> >> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 7:28 PM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: >> >>> Hi Anoop, >>> >>> >>> Sorry for the late response, I just come back from vacation. >>> >>> The use case is that the network between the VM and the NVE is an MPLS >>> network, within which the packet is forwarded basing on MPLS label, but not >>> Ethernet MAC address and/or 802.1Q VLAN. When two such kind of MPLS >>> networks need to communicate with each other, through a Geneve tunnel, the >>> encap I illustrated would be used. >>> >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Xiao Min >>> 原始邮件 >>> *发件人:*AnoopGhanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> >>> *收件人:*肖敏10093570; >>> *抄送人:*Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;didutt@gmail.com < >>> didutt@gmail.com>;draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org < >>> draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org>;nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>; >>> santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd WG < >>> rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; >>> tsridhar@vmware.com <tsridhar@vmware.com>; >>> *日 期 :*2019年09月28日 05:36 >>> *主 题 :**Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP* >>> Hi Xiao Min, >>> Thanks for the details about the encap but the use case is not clear. >>> It might help if you explain why its necessary to map a physical Ethernet >>> port and/or 802.1Q VLAN to the same VNI as an MPLS packet without an L2 >>> header. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Anoop >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 7:50 PM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Anoop, >>>> >>>> >>>> Due to the fact that a variety of Tunnels could be used under the NVO3 architecture, >>>> as an example, below figure illustrates the format of MPLS packet over >>>> Geneve Tunnel. >>>> >>>> 0 1 2 3 >>>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>> | | >>>> ~ Outer Ethernet Header ~ >>>> | | >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>> | | >>>> ~ Outer IPvX Header ~ >>>> | | >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>> | | >>>> ~ Outer UDP Header ~ >>>> | | >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>> | | >>>> ~ Geneve Header ~ >>>> | | >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ >>>> | | | >>>> ~ MPLS Label Stack ~ M >>>> | | P >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ L >>>> | | S >>>> | | >>>> ~ Payload ~ P >>>> | | K >>>> | | T >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ >>>> | FCS | >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>> >>>> >>>> Note that in NVO3 working group Greg and I have submitted an individual >>>> draft draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve, which is used to address BFD over Geneve. >>>> >>>> The intention is to make the two drafts draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan and >>>> draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve aligned, that is to say, we try to define the >>>> identical mechanism for the common part of BFD over VxLAN Tunnel and BFD >>>> over Geneve Tunnel. For the common part, draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve would >>>> reference to draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan, and for the other part specific to >>>> Geneve, we'll define the specific mechanism in draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve. >>>> >>>> >>>> Hope that clarifies. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> Xiao Min >>>> 原始邮件 >>>> *发件人:*AnoopGhanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> >>>> *收件人:*肖敏10093570; >>>> *抄送人:*Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;didutt@gmail.com < >>>> didutt@gmail.com>;draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org < >>>> draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org>;nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>; >>>> santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd WG >>>> <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; >>>> tsridhar@vmware.com <tsridhar@vmware.com>;bfd-chairs@ietf.org < >>>> bfd-chairs@ietf.org>; >>>> *日 期 :*2019年09月26日 23:16 >>>> *主 题 :**Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP* >>>> 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 <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> 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 <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> >>>>> *收件人:*肖敏10093570; >>>>> *抄送人:*Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;didutt@gmail.com < >>>>> didutt@gmail.com>;draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org < >>>>> draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org>;nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>; >>>>> santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd >>>>> WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; >>>>> tsridhar@vmware.com <tsridhar@vmware.com>;bfd-chairs@ietf.org < >>>>> bfd-chairs@ietf.org>; >>>>> *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 >>>>> nvo3@ietf.org >>>>> 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 <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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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