Hi, You can do (1) today. Why do you need a standard?
Thx Shahram -----Original Message----- From: Santosh P K [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 2:08 AM To: Shahram Davari; Gregory Mirsky; Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi) Cc: MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon); [email protected] Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan-00.txt Shahram, > > 1) OuterL2-Outer IP-UDP-VXLAN-Inner L2-Inner IP-UDP-BFD > > Or > > 2) OuterL2-Outer IP-UDP-VXLAN-Inner IP-UDP-BFD > > If (2) hen how do you specify the VXLAN payload in IP and not Ethernet? > It is 1) we have next version of this draft which address that part. Thanks Santosh P K > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 1:51 PM > To: Shahram Davari; Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi) > Cc: MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon); Santosh P K; [email protected] > Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan-00.txt > > Hi Shahram, > thank you for your comments to this proposal that make the discussion so > much alive. > I think that processing of the VXLAN tag by VTEP before validating BFD is > sufficient, in my view, level of verification. In VCCV BFD the PW label is not > used for BFD forwarding but we find it useful as Service OAM in addition to > RFC 5884, BFD over MPLS LSP. > > Regards, > Greg > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shahram Davari [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 10:39 AM > To: Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi) > Cc: Gregory Mirsky; MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon); Santosh P K; rtg- > [email protected] > Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan-00.txt > > Hi Prasad, > > Is this a special type of BFD or standard BFD RFC 5880 and 5881)? Since > standard BFD processing does no care where the BFD came from it only looks > at "your discriminator" to update BFD state machine. > > Also I don't see how many VXLANs can be checked via a single BFD session. > Could you please describe? > > Lastly checking to see a VXLAN/VNI forwarding domain exist in a VTEP should > not require BFD. Just use some query mechanism. Why do you need to run > continuous BFD. > > What you have to show me to convince me that your draft solves a real > problem is to show that VXLAN tag is used for BFD forwarding. Otherwise > BFD over the outer or Inner IP should give you all coverage needed. > > > Thx > Shahram > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 3:11 AM > To: Shahram Davari > Cc: Gregory Mirsky; MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon); Santosh P K; rtg- > [email protected] > Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan-00.txt > > Hello Shahram, > At the terminating VTEP, VxLAN information is used to consume the BFD > packet. In other words, a BFD session increases the confidence of the > existence of the VNI-Forwarding Domain mapping and the presence of valid > VTEP termination configuration at the terminating VTEP. At the originating > VTEP, it is a matter of implementation of how many VxLAN tables are > exercised in the datapath (am aware of at least one implementation where it > is being exercised to a considerable extent). > > Thanks > Prasad > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shahram Davari [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 8:24 PM > To: Shahram Davari > Cc: Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi); Gregory Mirsky; MALLIK > MUDIGONDA (mmudigon); Santosh P K; [email protected] > Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan-00.txt > > Hi > > May be a better way to make this clear is to answer the following question: > > Where is the VXLAN tag information used in this BFD forwarding? > > Thx > Shahram
