IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Sat, 08 June 2019 00:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F153E120058; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 17:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 MKULc7HBDx8u; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 17:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729EF12004D; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 17:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B163D1E2F1; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 20:42:47 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 20:42:47 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Shawn Emery <shawn.emery@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan.all@ietf.org, Shawn Emery <semery@uccs.edu>
Message-ID: <20190608004247.GE15506@pfrc.org>
References: <CAChzXmbSUko=KsWbAxTNvWAZjLig=hxhj3yAt-keh-hbbg8w8w@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmVtPGS3O7K3jzXkjXq91OMHSf_LKGBREqDJZzoAMjZ8pg@mail.gmail.com> <20190605212643.GB15506@pfrc.org> <CAChzXma04wcp1UR1mVA=MmdiAz+LStihqJXb5YwURXWa1pagKA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAChzXma04wcp1UR1mVA=MmdiAz+LStihqJXb5YwURXWa1pagKA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/xQKc2uJA9xeDR9PLoUQx0x-TWso>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2019 00:41:52 -0000

Shawn,

On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 04:30:50PM -0600, Shawn Emery wrote:
> SME: Could you use Jeff's text below to help with why BFD Echo is out of
> scope for this draft?
> 
[...]

> > Speaking as a BFD chair, this is the relevant observation.  BFD Echo is
> > underspecified to the point where claiming compliance is difficult at best.
> > In general, it relies on single-hop and the ability to have the remote Echo
> > client loop the packets.
> >
> > This packet loop may not be practical for several encapsulations and thus
> > is
> > out of scope for such encapsulations.  Whether this is practical for vxlan
> > today, or in the presence of future extensions to vxlan is left out of
> > scope
> > for the core proposal.

To ask the question succinctly: Can vxlan support such a packet loop?  If
not, bfd echo is out of scope.

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email