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

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 30 July 2020 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@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 D97813A1281; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 QsPXFcrVzWsr; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) (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 34EAC3A127D; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id 140so15916883lfi.5; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pMOPiOgGzCGYaTUP/OeCH5uuk9F3l6FZFIS6qzRqGuc=; b=PLTSJVusIn4orl0lKfMOvMGZ10fGZVMWSGs+ariEa3k6AP49CZeTmZokahb79gkzij F+/LqmoFvsbL/KY34yFkevcwZPCrwGKlHf9vqrxMEWe/FMeo5DwshAsdShv5njfM1VkM XyM6uag8RFCCBk5MET1ANTtIRKoG4baNwWR6Q1DV721S5uChcQisP4Hf06hkt4TG2fKm 8zMQV470s7DAvdTPBcY77DIFwpY/aGZqeDsvmkgXhsYy6ZFiAa3UQkaO6I1SpaBNZXFN C73a5tM+FkMb9pfi56BWxRkzzsHNBSH5tGVCzvcA1rYcdZsjEm8intbRsTg/loQ9CmRG aqTw==
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=pMOPiOgGzCGYaTUP/OeCH5uuk9F3l6FZFIS6qzRqGuc=; b=jvM5qLSc4mwR6C3FKJoHkdkmTSeCx4uQ8PtnRucyLvISum/nUI8klhfaf+aAE+pIST qURoV/NY6NsLgl8C81pQyo9I6v8LElIbceupVIN5GHt5rHLuaFXEWPCb5RRSPHfNc1Y/ L2frqIDw6/yW8fL5D4/FaTZk1qWenQUQXX7Mkkc98IzvWzP8fAxO57mEhgzGPGkLEvMy KiyMafAgOh/fAWenV/XbmmoCs+73R84spDtCNKnSbktDyhE7/1YVDS5hspfWFAjsjIGa KdhfGeFKi7KPhAwC1gGzkQuA9DQMbfp2IaEZsoc+2Q2d3kok57v5+6zy04bNxO09K++c tW3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530eBl7en8RKoG1m6TyhVw9ezOPAOPWhLJaor6n0xFgW2CTYTwOx /4+OA6ZW+IUfLeIE0oHjo3SAoQ0ITa6cQh81ugZ85w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzCtRQQIEIsTnK7jhXz9sqtNVlNUSHmOA4en4xs7b0ZURWIKLVgOsjwPbqEDXb9+uAhUfEZzJjNnWmbIH9cJbg=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:4857:: with SMTP id v84mr487747lfa.195.1596153305265; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200127221705.GB17622@pfrc.org> <20200616211057.GA21373@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmXk_-gnuyUYwbSwkfiBSvUnX77G2m5M4bkDsYQiHYjqbw@mail.gmail.com> <E2C152D4-AA4C-4CC8-BAD1-13FF007552E6@pfrc.org> <20200720213734.GC25102@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200720213734.GC25102@pfrc.org>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:54:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmViC-rxZC=iwAzLAq0YOOo7PT_6fby9mwc0WEM+m4B6TA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BFD for vxlan Destination MAC field (was Re: draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan IESG status)
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, bfd-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c4783b05abb166a4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/yT0xVcHgdyaoQmoonAQQ7rnbcHs>
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: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 23:55:10 -0000

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 <jhaas@pfrc.org> 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
>