Thank you, Joel and Jeff. I'll upload the working version shortly. I hope that updates will address all comments and concerns shared on several threads by Anoop, Dinesh, Joel, and many others. I greatly value and appreciate the time, expertise, and consideration you've given to this work, and have shared with me.
Regards, Greg On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 9:22 AM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: > I also agree with Joel. > > -- Jeff > > > > On Oct 31, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> > wrote: > > > > Explicitly restricting the discard behavior to the management VNI takes > care of my concern. > > > > Thank you, > > Joel > > > > On 10/31/2019 11:48 AM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > >> Hi Jeff, > >> thank you for the detailed clarification of your questions. Please find > my follow-up notes in-lined tagged GIM2>>. > >> Regards, > >> Greg > >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:14 PM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org <mailto: > jh...@pfrc.org>> wrote: > >> Greg, > >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 01:58:30PM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote: > >> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:27 PM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org > >> <mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Greg, > >> > > > >> > > From the updated text: > >> > > > >> > > "At the same time, a service layer BFD session may be used > >> between the > >> > > tenants of VTEPs IP1 and IP2 to provide end-to-end fault > >> management. In > >> > > such case, for VTEPs BFD Control packets of that session are > >> > > indistinguishable from data packets. If end-to-end defect > >> detection is > >> > > realized as the set of concatenated OAM domains, e.g., VM1-1 - > >> IP1 -- > >> > > IP2 - VM2-1, then the BFD session over VXLAN between VTEPs > SHOULD > >> > > follow the procedures described in Section 6.8.17 [RFC5880]." > >> > > > >> > > In the case that two VMs are running BFD to each other as a user > >> > > application > >> > > rather than as part of the virtualized environment, it's > >> unlikely that > >> > > they'd be treated as concatenated domains. To do so, the > >> tenant VMs would > >> > > have to have a sense that they are indeed virtual. > >> > > > >> > > Is your intent in this text that BFD implementations on the > >> server should > >> > > detect BFD sessions between servers and change them to a > >> concatenated > >> > > session? > >> > > > >> > GIM>> No, we do not suggest that the concatenation of BFD > sessions be > >> > automagical. That may be controlled via the management plane > though. > >> Then my suggestion is we may not want this text. > >> It's fine to say "if tenants want to run BFD to each other, and that > is > >> standard BFD (RFC 5881) from the perspective of those tenants" if > that's > >> your intent. Leave automagic out of the spec. :-) > >> GIM2>> I'd take the passage referring to the concatenated path out. > That will leave it as: > >> At the same time, a service layer BFD session may be used between the > >> tenants of VTEPs IP1 and IP2 to provide end-to-end fault management. > >> In such case, for VTEPs BFD Control packets of that session are > >> indistinguishable from data packets. > >> > > Section 5 comment: > >> > > > >> > > : The UDP destination port and the TTL of the inner IP packet > >> MUST be > >> > > : validated to determine if the received packet can be > >> processed by > >> > > : BFD. BFD Control packets with unknown MAC address MUST NOT > be > >> > > : forwarded to VMs. > >> > > > >> > > I'd suggest pushing the second sentence into the prior section > >> since it > >> > > deals with MAC addresses rather than the UDP procedures. > >> > > > >> > GIM>> Could you please clarify your suggestion - move to Section > >> 4 or to > >> > the preceding paragraph? I think it is the latter but wanted to > >> make sure. > >> Full section 5 from your draft-8 candidate: > >> : 5. Reception of BFD Packet from VXLAN Tunnel > >> : > >> : Once a packet is received, the VTEP MUST validate the packet. > If the > >> : Destination MAC of the inner Ethernet frame matches one of the > MAC > >> : addresses associated with the VTEP the packet MUST be processed > >> : further. If the Destination MAC of the inner Ethernet frame > >> doesn't > >> : match any of VTEP's MAC addresses, then the processing of the > >> : received VXLAN packet MUST follow the procedures described in > >> : Section 4.1 [RFC7348]. > >> It's not clear what that procedure is, with respect to BFD. Section > 4.1 > >> basically says is that when a mapping is discovered, deliver it to > >> that VM > >> with headers removed. > >> Section 4.1 really doesn't discuss dropping behavior. > >> : > >> : The UDP destination port and the TTL of the inner IP packet > MUST be > >> : validated to determine if the received packet can be processed > by > >> : BFD. > >> This is fine. > >> : BFD Control packets with unknown MAC address MUST NOT be > >> : forwarded to VMs. > >> This appears to be clarifying the missing point in the prior > >> paragraph. If > >> that's the case, why is this sentence not part of the prior > paragraph? > >> GIM>> So I thought. Moving the sentence to the first paragraph > highlighted the contradiction others had pointed earlier: > >> On the one hand: > >> If the Destination MAC of the inner Ethernet frame doesn't > >> match any of VTEP's MAC addresses, then the processing of the > >> received VXLAN packet MUST follow the procedures described in > >> Section 4.1 [RFC7348]. > >> To which we add: > >> BFD Control packets with unknown MAC address > >> MUST NOT be forwarded to VMs. > >> But the unknown MACs are treated as BUM according to the last paragraph > in Section 4.2 of RFC 7348: > >> Note that multicast frames and "unknown MAC destination" frames are > >> also sent using the multicast tree, similar to the broadcast frames. > >> In light of that, can this draft require that BFD packets with unknown > MAC be dropped and not flooded over the corresponding to the VNI domain? I > think that in addition to moving the sentence up the statement must be > updated: > >> OLD TEXT: > >> BFD Control packets with unknown MAC address > >> MUST NOT be forwarded to VMs. > >> NEW TEXT: > >> If the BFD session is using the Management VNI (Section 6), > >> BFD Control packets with unknown MAC address > >> MUST NOT be forwarded to VMs. > >> Comments? Suggestions? > >> -- Jeff > >
