Hi Anoop,
Due to the fact that a variety of Tunnels could be used under the NVO3
architecture, as an example, below figure illustrates the format of MPLS packet
over Geneve Tunnel.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Outer Ethernet Header ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Outer IPvX Header ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Outer UDP Header ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Geneve Header ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| | |
~ MPLS Label Stack ~ M
| | P
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ L
| | S
| |
~ Payload ~ P
| | K
| | T
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| FCS |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note that in NVO3 working group Greg and I have submitted an individual draft
draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve, which is used to address BFD over Geneve.
The intention is to make the two drafts draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan and
draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve aligned, that is to say, we try to define the
identical mechanism for the common part of BFD over VxLAN Tunnel and BFD over
Geneve Tunnel. For the common part, draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve would reference
to draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan, and for the other part specific to Geneve, we'll
define the specific mechanism in draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve.
Hope that clarifies.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
原始邮件
发件人：AnoopGhanwani <[email protected]>
收件人：肖敏10093570;
抄送人：Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;rtg-bfd WG <[email protected]>;Joel M. Halpern
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;
日 期 ：2019年09月26日 23:16
主 题 ：Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
Hi Xiao Min,
I think we would need more detail around the use case below. What does the
MPLS packet over Tunnel look like?
Thanks,
Anoop
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 11:37 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Anoop,
Thanks for your comments.
Considering a scenario where TS1 has an MPLS access (i.e. MPLS-Packet over
Tunnel between NVEs) to VNI1, TS3 has an Ethernet access (i.e. MAC-Frame over
Tunnel between NVEs) to VNI1, then how can TS1 and TS3 share one VAP?
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
原始邮件
发件人：AnoopGhanwani <[email protected]>
收件人：肖敏10093570;
抄送人：Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;rtg-bfd WG <[email protected]>;Joel M. Halpern
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;
日 期 ：2019年09月26日 08:36
主 题 ：Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>>>
Some people may argue that all Tenant Systems connecting to the same Virtual
Network MUST share one VAP, if that's true, then VAP1 and VAP3 should merge
into one VAP and my explanation doesn't work. Copying to NVO3 WG to involve
more experts, hope for your clarifications and comments.
>>>
I would be one of those that would argue that they MUST share on VAP if they
connect to the same Virtual Network. IMO, the NVO3 arch doc should have been
clearer about this.
Thanks,
Anoop
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 7:40 PM <[email protected]> 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.
Of course, in RFC8014 it also says:
"Note that two different Tenant Systems (and TSIs) attached to a common NVE can
share a VAP (e.g., TS1 and TS2 in Figure 2) so long as they connect to the same
Virtual Network."
Some people may argue that all Tenant Systems connecting to the same Virtual
Network MUST share one VAP, if that's true, then VAP1 and VAP3 should merge
into one VAP and my explanation doesn't work. Copying to NVO3 WG to involve
more experts, hope for your clarifications and comments.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
