Hi Anoop, et al., I agree with your understanding of what is being defined in the current version of the BFD over VxLAN specification. But, as I understand, the WG is discussing the scope before the WGLC is closed. I believe there are three options:
1. single BFD session between two VTEPs 2. single BFD session per VNI between two VTEPs 3. multiple BFD sessions per VNI between two VTEPs The current text reflects #2. Is WG accepts this scope? If not, which option WG would accept? Regards, Greg On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:09 PM Anoop Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: > I concur with Joel's assessment with the following clarifications. > > The current document is already capable of monitoring multiple VNIs > between VTEPs. > > The issue under discussion was how do we use BFD to monitor multiple VAPs > that use the same VNI between a pair of VTEPs. The use case for this is > not clear to me, as from my understanding, we cannot have a situation with > multiple VAPs using the same VNI--there is 1:1 mapping between VAP and VNI. > > Anoop > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 6:06 AM Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> > wrote: > >> From what I can tell, there are two separate problems. >> The document we have is a VTEP-VTEP monitoring document. There is no >> need for that document to handle the multiple VNI case. >> If folks want a protocol for doing BFD monitoring of things behind the >> VTEPs (multiple VNIs), then do that as a separate document. The >> encoding will be a tenant encoding, and thus sesparate from what is >> defined in this document. >> >> Yours, >> Joel >> >> On 10/21/2019 5:07 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: >> > Santosh and others, >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 07:50:20PM +0530, Santosh P K wrote: >> >> Thanks for your explanation. This helps a lot. I would wait for >> more >> >> comments from others to see if this what we need in this draft to be >> >> supported based on that we can provide appropriate sections in the >> draft. >> > >> > The threads on the list have spidered to the point where it is >> challenging >> > to follow what the current status of the draft is, or should be. :-) >> > >> > However, if I've followed things properly, the question below is really >> the >> > hinge point on what our encapsulation for BFD over vxlan should look >> like. >> > Correct? >> > >> > Essentially, do we or do we not require the ability to permit multiple >> BFD >> > sessions between distinct VAPs? >> > >> > If this is so, do we have a sense as to how we should proceed? >> > >> > -- Jeff >> > >> > [context preserved below...] >> > >> >> Santosh P K >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:10 AM <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi Santosh, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> With regard to the question whether we should allow multiple BFD >> sessions >> >>> for the same VNI or not, IMHO we should allow it, more explanation as >> >>> follows. >> >>> >> >>> Below is a figure derived from figure 2 of RFC8014 (An Architecture >> for >> >>> Data-Center Network Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3)). >> >>> >> >>> | Data Center Network (IP) | >> >>> | | >> >>> +-----------------------------------------+ >> >>> | | >> >>> | Tunnel Overlay | >> >>> +------------+---------+ +---------+------------+ >> >>> | +----------+-------+ | | +-------+----------+ | >> >>> | | Overlay Module | | | | Overlay Module | | >> >>> | +---------+--------+ | | +---------+--------+ | >> >>> | | | | | | >> >>> NVE1 | | | | | | >> NVE2 >> >>> | +--------+-------+ | | +--------+-------+ | >> >>> | |VNI1 VNI2 VNI1 | | | | VNI1 VNI2 VNI1 | | >> >>> | +-+-----+----+---+ | | +-+-----+-----+--+ | >> >>> |VAP1| VAP2| | VAP3 | |VAP1| VAP2| | VAP3| >> >>> +----+-----+----+------+ +----+-----+-----+-----+ >> >>> | | | | | | >> >>> | | | | | | >> >>> | | | | | | >> >>> -------+-----+----+-------------------+-----+-----+------- >> >>> | | | Tenant | | | >> >>> TSI1 | TSI2| | TSI3 TSI1| TSI2| |TSI3 >> >>> +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ >> >>> |TS1| |TS2| |TS3| |TS4| |TS5| |TS6| >> >>> +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ >> >>> >> >>> To my understanding, the BFD sessions between NVE1 and NVE2 are >> actually >> >>> initiated and terminated at VAP of NVE. >> >>> >> >>> If the network operator want to set up one BFD session between VAP1 of >> >>> NVE1 and VAP1of NVE2, at the same time another BFD session between >> VAP3 of >> >>> NVE1 and VAP3 of NVE2, although the two BFD sessions are for the same >> >>> VNI1, I believe it's reasonable, so that's why I think we should >> allow it >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nvo3 mailing list >> n...@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >> >
