Hi Greg,
Thanks for the reply.
Please see inline with [XM-4]>>>.
Original
From: GregMirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>
To: 肖敏10093570;
Cc: Sam Aldrin <aldrin.i...@gmail.com>;NVO3
<nvo3@ietf.org>;nvo3-cha...@ietf.org
<nvo3-cha...@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-...@ietf.org
<draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-...@ietf.org>;
Date: 2023年11月18日 06:56
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for
draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07
Hi Xiao Min,thank you for your thorough review. Please find my notes below
tagged GIM3>>. Attached, please find the updated working version .
Regards,
Greg
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 11:49 PM <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thank you for the reply and proposed updates.
Please see inline with [XM-3]>>>.
Original
From: GregMirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>
To: 肖敏10093570;
Cc: aldrin.i...@gmail.com <aldrin.i...@gmail.com>;nvo3@ietf.org
<nvo3@ietf.org>;nvo3-cha...@ietf.org
<nvo3-cha...@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-...@ietf.org
<draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-...@ietf.org>;
Date: 2023年10月26日 10:43
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for
draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
Hi Xiao Min,thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the proposed changes
and the proposed update. I've accepted your idea with a minor editorial
modification:
OLD TEXT:
In the first case, a communication problem between Network
Virtualization Edge (NVE) device A and NVE C was observed. The
underlay, e.g., IP network, forwarding is working well but the Geneve
connection is unstable for all tenants of NVE A and NVE C.
Troubleshooting and localization of the problem can be done
irrespective of the VNI value.
NEW TEXT:
In the first case, consider when a communication problem
between Network Virtualization Edge (NVE) device A and NVE C exists.
Upon the investigation, the operator discovers that the forwarding in
the underlay, e.g., the IP network, is working well. Still, the
Geneve connection is unstable for all NVE A and NVE C tenants.
Detection, troubleshooting, and localization of the problem can be
done irrespective of the VNI value.
[XM-3]>>> It looks good to me.
I hope that you agree with the new version. Attached, please find the new
working version of the draft and the diff highlighting all the updates.
[XM-3]>>> It seems some of my previous comments are missed. Repeat them as
below.
In Section 2, it says "In the latter case, the test packet MUST use the same
Geneve encapsulation as the data packet (except for the value in the Protocol
Type field [RFC8926]), including the value in the Virtual Network Identifier
(VNI) field." Why does it say "except for the value in the Protocol Type field
[RFC8926]"? I don't think so.
GIM3>> If the value of the Protocol Type field indicates Ethernet payload
(0x6558), then IPv4 or IPv6 encapsulated OAM packets must be identified by a
different respective values in the Protocol Type field. Wou;d you agree?
[XM-4]>>> I suspect that you confuse the second case with the first case. In
the sentence I quoted, the context is "In the latter case", i.e., the second
case, in this case whether the Protocol Type or the VNI would be the same
between the test packet and the data packet. Please refer to
draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve.
In Section 2.1, it says "The ICMP echo reply is encapsulated in Geneve as
specified in Section 2.2...", that's incorrect, do you mean Section 3?
GIM3>> I think that the reference to Section 2.2 is correct as that section
defines the encapsulation of an OAM packet in Geneve using the Management VNI.
Section 3 only lists references to the relevant RFCs.
[XM-4]>>> Note that the title of Figure 2 of Section 2.2 is "Geneve IP/UDP
Encapsulation of an Active OAM Packet", however the ICMP echo reply is *NOT* a
UDP-based OAM packet.
In Section 2.2, it says "Active OAM in Geneve network uses an IP
encapsulation", lacking the context of the Management VNI case.
GIM3>> Would the following update make that clear:
OLD TEXT:
Active OAM in Geneve network uses an IP encapsulation.
NEW TEXT:
Active OAM over a Management VNI in the Geneve network uses an IP
encapsulation.
[XM-4]>>> It looks good to me.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
In Section 2.2, it says "The UDP source port can be used to provide
entropy...", I don't think so.
GIM3>> I agree, this is unnecessary as active OAM will use the same entropy
mechanisms as the Geneve data flow.
In Section 2.2, it says "Destination IP: IP address MUST NOT be of one of
tenant's IP addresses. The IP address MUST be set to the loopback address
127.0.0.1/32 for IPv4, or the loopback address ::1/128 for IPv6 [RFC4291]." Now
that "the IP address MUST be set to the loopback address", why does it need to
say "IP address MUST NOT be of one of tenant's IP addresses"?
GIM3>> Thank you for pointing that out. I agree, "MUST NOT" is unnecessary as
"MUST be set to the loopback address" is sufficient.
Cheers,
Xiao Min
Regards,
Greg
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 8:07 PM <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thank you for the reply.
Please see inline with [XM-2]>>>.
Original
From: GregMirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>
To: 肖敏10093570;
Cc: aldrin.i...@gmail.com <aldrin.i...@gmail.com>;nvo3@ietf.org
<nvo3@ietf.org>;nvo3-cha...@ietf.org
<nvo3-cha...@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-...@ietf.org
<draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-...@ietf.org>;
Date: 2023年10月12日 22:01
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for
draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07
Hi Xiao Min,thank you for your clarifications and detailed questions. Please
find my notes below tagged by GIM2>>. Also, attached in the new working version
and diff highlighting updates.
Regards,
Greg
On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 9:46 AM <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Many thanks for your consideration of my comments.
I noticed that a new -08 version has been posted, so my further comments would
be based on the latest revision.
Please see inline.
Original
From: GregMirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>
To: 肖敏10093570;
Cc: aldrin.i...@gmail.com <aldrin.i...@gmail.com>;nvo3@ietf.org
<nvo3@ietf.org>;nvo3-cha...@ietf.org
<nvo3-cha...@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-...@ietf.org
<draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-...@ietf.org>;
Date: 2023年09月22日 09:09
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for
draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
Hi Xiao Min,thank you for your detailed comments and thoughtful suggestions.
Please find my notes below tagged GIM>>. Attached are the new working version
of the draft and the diff highlighting the updates.
Regards,
Greg
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 7:12 PM <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thanks for taking my suggestions into account. I believe this document is on
the right way.
Still, I want to extract some text from the working version for further
discussion.
In section 2.1, it says "Encapsulation of test packets for both cases is
discussed in Section 2.2."
As I've said before, the OAM over Geneve encap defined in section 2.2 applies
*only* to the Management VNI, i.e., the first case.
GIM>> I agree and removed this new sentence appending the following sentence to
the paragraph that introduces the Management VNI:
NEW TEXT:
Encapsulation of
test packets using the Management VNI is discussed in Section 2.2.
[XM]>>> Thank you. Except for this sentence in Section 2.1, there are still
some sentences in Section 1 that seems confusing to me, e.g., it says "note
that the IP encapsulation of OAM applies to those Virtual Network Identifiers
(VNIs) that support the use of the necessary values of the Protocol Type field
in the Geneve header". Could you please go through the whole document to make
all the statements consistent? Some references to draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve
and draft-xiao-nvo3-pm-geneve may be added to help the reader understand the
difference between the Management VNI case and the really deployed VNI case.
GIM2>> Would the following edit of the text in Section 1 make the text clear:
OLD TEXT:
Also,
note that the IP encapsulation of OAM applies to those Virtual
Network Identifiers (VNIs) that support the use of the necessary
values of the Protocol Type field in the Geneve header, i.e.,
Ethertypes for IPv4 or IPv6. It does not apply to VNIs that lack
that support, e.g., VNIs that only support Ethernet Ethertypes.
Analysis and definition of other types of OAM encapsulation in Geneve
are outside the scope of this document.
NEW TEXT:
The IP
encapsulation of Geneve OAM defined in this document applies to an
overlay service by way of introducing a Management Virtual
Network Identifier (VNI) that could be used in combination with
various values of the Protocol Type field in the Geneve header, i.e.,
Ethertypes for IPv4 or IPv6. Analysis and definition of other types
of OAM encapsulation in Geneve are outside the scope of this
document.
[XM-2]>>> various values? It looks only two values, i.e., Ethertypes for IPv4
or IPv6.
Could you highlight other cases that can benefit from a clarification?
[XM-2]>>> In Section 2, it says
"In the latter case, the test packet MUST use the same Geneve encapsulation as
the data packet (except for the value in the Protocol Type field [RFC8926]),
including the value in the Virtual Network Identifier (VNI) field."
Why does it say "except for the value in the Protocol Type field [RFC8926]"? I
don't think so.
In Section 2.1, it says "The ICMP echo reply is encapsulated in Geneve as
specified in Section 2.2...", that's incorrect, do you mean Section 3?
In Section 2.2, it says "Active OAM in Geneve network uses an IP
encapsulation", lacking the context of the Management VNI case.
In Section 2.2, it says "The UDP source port can be used to provide
entropy...", I don't think so.
In Section 2.2, it says
" Destination IP: IP address MUST NOT be of one of tenant's IP addresses. The
IP address MUST be set to the loopback address 127.0.0.1/32 for IPv4, or the
loopback address ::1/128 for IPv6 [RFC4291]."
Now that "the IP address MUST be set to the loopback address", why does it need
to say "IP address MUST NOT be of one of tenant's IP addresses"?
In section 1, the definition of VAP is introduced, and the only use of it is
within section 2.2, it says "Source IP: IP address of the originating VAP".
I'm a bit confused, to my understanding the VAP is irrelevant to the test on
Management VNI, the Source IP should be set to the IP address of the
originating NVE but not the originating VAP.
GIM>> Thank you for pointing that out to me. I removed the references to VAP in
the document and updated the text accordingly.
[XM]>>> Thanks.
In section 2.1, it says "The Management VNI SHOULD be terminated on the
tenant-facing side of the Geneve encap/decap functionality, not the
DC-network-facing side (per definitions in Section 4 of [RFC8014]) so that
Geneve encap/decap functionality is included in its scope."
I'm not sure this statement is accurate. The Management VNI is a specific VNI
not really deployed at the tenant-facing side, so it seems impossible to be
terminated on the tenent-facing side.
GIM>> You are right. The Management VNI is a logical construct and, as such,
where it is terminated is also a logical entity. By pointing out where the
termination of the Management VNI happens, the document provides useful
information to an implementer. That information is important to ensure that
Geneve encap/decap functionality is exercised by an active OAM.
[XM]>>> OK.
In section 1, it says "IP encapsulation conforms to these requirements and is a
suitable encapsulation of active OAM protocols in a Geneve overlay network."
I'm not sure this statement is comprehensive. For the first case (Management
VNI) discussed in section 2.1, I agree that IP encapsulation is enough, but for
the second case, Ethernet encapsulation is also needed, which is clearly
specified in draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve.
GIM>> I agree that the IP encapsulation using the Management VNI addresses the
first of two scenarios analyzed in Section 2.1. But I don't think that it does
not conform to the requirements listed in Section 2. Could you help me by
identifying which of five requirements cannot be fulfilled by the IP
encapsulation using the Management VNI?
[XM]>>> REQ#1. As you indicated above, Management VNI is a logical construct,
not the VNI really deployed at the NVE, and considering that the Ethernet over
Geneve encap is the most popular one, I don't think a strict fate sharing can
be fulfilled by the IP encapsulation using the Management VNI.
GIM2>> By using the Management VNI, in my opinion, we ensure the fate sharing
of an active Geneve OAM with Geneve overlay service. I agree that the
Management VNI may not be the most useful method to monitor an Ethernet service
over the Geneve tunnel. I think that is clear from the text of the document.
[XM-2]>>> OK, it's up to you. I reserve my suggestion to change the quoted text.
In section 2.1, it says "The second case requires that a test packet be
transmitted using the VNI value for the traffic that is encountering problems
and the test packet is experiences network treatment as the tenant's packets."
I'm not sure this statement is accurate, "that is encountering problems" seems
applicable to ICMP Ping but not applicable to BFD, because BFD itself is used
to detect traffic problems.
GIM>> I think that the goal of BFD is well described in the Abstract of RFC
5880:
This document describes a protocol intended to detect faults in the
bidirectional path between two forwarding engines, including
interfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding
engines themselves, with potentially very low latency.
From this definition I conclude that BFD detects faults, i.e., problems in the
elements listed in the Abstract. Would you agree?
[XM]>>> Let me elaborate a bit more. This sentence in Section 2.1 implies that
in the second case a test packet is transmitted only when the traffic is
encountering problems, IMHO that's not the case, take BFD as an example, in the
second case the BFD Control packets should be transmitted from the beginning,
but not after detecting some traffic problems.
GIM2>> Thank you for helping me to understand your concern. I hope I get it
now. Would the following update make the message unambiguous and acceptable:
OLD TEXT:
The second case requires that a test packet be transmitted using the
VNI value for the traffic that is encountering problems and the test
packet experiences network treatment as the tenant's packets. Detail
of that use case are outside the scope of this specification.
NEW TEXT:
[XM-2]>>> I don't know what's wrong, but it seems your NEW TEXT disappeared.
The good thing is that I can see it from your attached Diff file, and that's
fine to me. At the same time, I propose to change the text in Section 2.1 as
below.
OLD TEXT
In the first case, a communication problem between Network Virtualization Edge
(NVE) device A and NVE C was observed. The underlay, e.g., IP network,
forwarding is working well but the Geneve connection is unstable for all
tenants of NVE A and NVE C. Troubleshooting and localization of the problem can
be done irrespective of the VNI value.
NEW TEXT
In the first case, a communication problem between Network Virtualization Edge
(NVE) device A and NVE C exists. The underlay, e.g., IP network, forwarding is
working well but the Geneve connection is unstable for all tenants of NVE A and
NVE C. Detection, troubleshooting and localization of the problem can be done
irrespective of the VNI value.
Cheers,
Xiao Min
Cheers,
Xiao Min
BTW, "the test packet is experiences network treatment" has nit.
GIM>> Thank you for catching it. Fixed.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
Original
From: GregMirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>
To: 肖敏10093570;
Cc: aldrin.i...@gmail.com <aldrin.i...@gmail.com>;nvo3@ietf.org
<nvo3@ietf.org>;nvo3-cha...@ietf.org
<nvo3-cha...@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-...@ietf.org
<draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-...@ietf.org>;
Date: 2023年08月07日 06:12
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for
draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
Hi Xiao Min,thank you for your suggestions. I've updated the draft to address
your concern. Please let me know if you agree with the changes highlighted in
the attached diff (the working version also includes updates that address the
editorial updates suggested by Donald Eastlake).
Regards,
Greg
On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 1:12 AM <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> wrote:
Hi all,
I support progressing this document to publication.
At the same time, I strongly suggest the authors to rethink about the scope of
this document.
This document introduces two cases of using active OAM protocols for Geneve,
the first case is to use the Management VNI, and the second case is to use the
VNIs really deployed in the NVE, that's fine to me. However, it's said that the
OAM encapsulation defined in Section 2.2 can be used for both cases, I don't
think so. As specified in draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve, in order to use the VNIs
really deployed, VAP based OAM solution is necessary, i.e., the MAC/IP address
of VAP must be used as long as it's available, and then the VNI can be
identified through VAP-to-VNI mapping. Besides, for the second case, both
Ethernet over Geneve encap and IP over Geneve encap are needed. So with that
said, the OAM encap defined in Section 2.2 can be slightly tweaked to be
applicable to the first case only, and the OAM encap for the second case can be
made outside the scope of this document.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
Original
From: SamAldrin <aldrin.i...@gmail.com>
To: NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>;nvo3-cha...@ietf.org
<nvo3-cha...@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-...@ietf.org
<draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-...@ietf.org>;
Date: 2023年06月28日 14:27
Subject: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for
draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
This email begins a two-week working group last call for
draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam/).
Please review the draft and post any comments to the NVO3 working group list.
If you have read the latest version of the draft but have no comments and
believe it is ready for publication as an informational RFC, please also
indicate so to the WG email list.
We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document, please
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the
Authors and Contributors.
Currently there are no IPR disclosures against this document.
If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in
conformance with IETF rules.
This poll will run until Friday 12th July 2023.
Regards
Sam and Matthew
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
