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, 9 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>rg>;
> santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd WG <
> rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>;
> tsridhar@vmware.com <tsridhar@vmware.com>om>;
> *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>rg>;
>> santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd WG <
>> rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>;
>> tsridhar@vmware.com <tsridhar@vmware.com>om>;
>> *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>rg>;
>>> santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd WG <
>>> rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>;
>>> tsridhar@vmware.com <tsridhar@vmware.com>om>;
>>> *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>rg>;
>>>> santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd WG
>>>> <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>;
>>>> tsridhar@vmware.com <tsridhar@vmware.com>;bfd-chairs@ietf.org <
>>>> bfd-chairs@ietf.org>gt;;
>>>> *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>rg>;
>>>>> santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd
>>>>> WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>;
>>>>> tsridhar@vmware.com <tsridhar@vmware.com>;bfd-chairs@ietf.org <
>>>>> bfd-chairs@ietf.org>gt;;
>>>>> *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
>