Hello Authors,
Below are the comments on the draft.
"[Ed.Note]: Use of O bit is still being discussed in the NVO3 WG, so
the value is undetermined."
[SPK] In some of the implementation that are using BFD over GENEVE
have already started using O bit to indicate this is OAM packet and
these packets are not being forwarded. We may need to set this in the
GENEVE header for compatibility and have extra information for the new
implementation. Any thoughts?
"Since multiple BFD sessions may be running between two NVEs, and multiple
BFD sessions may be originating or terminating at one NVE, there needs to
be a mechanism for demultiplexing received BFD packets to the proper
session."
[SPK] BFD VXLAN https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07 drafts
there is good discussion going on if we need to define the motivation of
the draft on what problem it solves if we have BFD per VNI. There are
concerns about the scalability for the same. While we can still have BFD
for subset of VNI or we can have BFD per VNI at sedate interval/demand mode
and may use P/F sequence to poll when required. We can define supporting
use case or when P/F sequence can be really used for example it can be used
when data traffic for a given VNI has not been received for some duration.
There should also be an option to run BFD session for management VNI along
with BFD for per VNI.
"Since multiple BFD sessions may be running between two NVEs, and multiple
BFD sessions may be originating or terminating at one NVE, there needs to
be a mechanism for demultiplexing received BFD packets to the proper
session."
[SPK] Above section in subtle way tries to talk about multiple BFD session
between same pair but again we need to be clear on what is the motivation?
These are my initial thoughts and would like to see good discussion over
this draft. Please do let me know if you think we need to address them.
Thanks
Santosh P K
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
