Greg,
I think the draft is fine as is.
I discussion with Xiao Min was about #3 and I see that as
unnecessary until we have a draft that explains why that is
needed in the context of the NVO3 architecture.
Anoop
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:17 AM Greg Mirsky
<gregimir...@gmail.com <mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> 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
