Hi Joel,
if the underlay may balance VXLAN between two VTEPs using VNI in
addition to other fields, then Option 2 has a certain value in my opinion.
Regards,
Greg
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 3:06 PM Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com
<mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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> <mailto:n...@ietf.org
<mailto:n...@ietf.org>>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>
