Re:BFD Echo mode coverage in BFD for VXLAN

<xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> Mon, 16 September 2019 02:10 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
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 68B5112080E for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.938
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.938 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 y0KyEL2yKX9m for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E919120807 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 03A58FC8E6E1CBEB3243; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:10:46 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp01.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.200]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id x8G2AYmb077923; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:10:34 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:10:34 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:10:34 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa5d7eef1a32db44ef
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201909161010341793724@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <20190911145345.GC23252@pfrc.org>
References: 20190910175147.GG1662@pfrc.org,20190911145345.GC23252@pfrc.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
To: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6QkZEIEVjaG8gbW9kZSBjb3ZlcmFnZSBpbiBCRkQgZm9yIFZYTEFO?=
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn x8G2AYmb077923
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/z46QDpt6N2XoTjNqZvXx-3IPueQ>
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: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:10:50 -0000

Hi Jeff,






I talked to implementor of my company, and I got the feedback that the provision of peer ip address is necessary, that means different ip address can be provisioned to different BFD session. As to VNI, there is no restriction on which VNI to choose. I guess this behavior is compiant with the current version of the draft.






Best Regards,


Xiao Min





原始邮件



发件人:JeffreyHaas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
收件人:肖敏10093570;
抄送人:rtg-bfd@ietf.org <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>rg>;
日 期 :2019年09月12日 00:52
主 题 :Re: BFD Echo mode coverage in BFD for VXLAN




Xiam Min,

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:01:11PM +0800, xiao.min2@zte.com.cn wrote:
> From my personal perspective, I don't think we should require BFD for
> VxLAN to support Echo mode, because as I know, although the final standard
> is still on the way, many vendors including my company have already
> implemented BFD for VxLAN, and it seems that works fine, there is no
> request from them on Echo mode, which in my view is a lightweight BFD tool
> used to substitute a relatively more complex BFD implementation.

Thanks for your commentary.

Also, as an implementor, does your implementation's bootstrapping for BFD
sessions follow the text that is in the current version of the
internet-draft?  There is some continuing debate holding up last call
comments on this point.

-- Jeff