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
