I do not understand the value of option 2.
Which is why I asked in my initial review to move to option 1.
And option 2 requires stealing MAC addresses from the users, which seems
to me to be a very bad thing that option 1 avoids.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/22/2019 2:17 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto:n...@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
