Hi Xiao Min, Thanks for the details about the encap but the use case is not clear. It might help if you explain why its necessary to map a physical Ethernet port and/or 802.1Q VLAN to the same VNI as an MPLS packet without an L2 header.
Thanks, Anoop On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 7:50 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
