I will add that from the point of view of VxLAN 9which is the topic), I
would expect the MPLS packet to arrive in an Ethernet frame, and for
VxLAN to forward that Ethernet frame. The VTEP would not seem to even
need to be aware that the content is MPLS.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/8/2019 6:28 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
Hi Xiao Min,
The picture doesn't have enough information to explain why they are in
the same VNI, and exactly how forwarding happens between the MPLS and
non-MPLS parts.
Anoop
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:31 AM <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn
<mailto:xiao.m...@zte.com.cn>> wrote:
Hi Anoop,
I don't know such a draft that describes MPLS over Geneve, but I
believe the following figure derived from figure 1 of RFC8014 would
help, in the following figure Tenant System1, Tenant System2, Tenant
System3 and Tenant System4 are assumed belonging to the same VNI, so
two BFD sessions for the same VNI need to be run between NVE1 and NVE2.
+--------+
+----| Tenant |
( ' ) | System1|
................ ( MPLS ) +--------+
. . +--+-+ ( _ )
. .--|NVE1|---+
. . | |
. . +--+-+
. . |
. L3 Overlay . ( ' )
. Network . (Ethernet)
. . ( _ )
. . |
................ +--------+
| | Tenant |
+----+ | System2|
|NVE2| +--------+
| |--------+
+----+ |
| |
( ' ) ( ' )
( MPLS ) (Ethernet)
( _ ) ( _ )
| |
+--------+ +--------+
| Tenant | | Tenant |
| System3| | System4|
+--------+ +--------+
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
原始邮件
*发件人：*AnoopGhanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu
<mailto:an...@alumni.duke.edu>>
*收件人：*肖敏10093570;
*抄送人：*Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com
<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>>;did...@gmail.com
<mailto:did...@gmail..com> <did...@gmail.com
<mailto:did...@gmail.com>>;draft-ietf-bfd-vx...@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-ietf-bfd-vx...@ietf.org>
<draft-ietf-bfd-vx...@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-ietf-bfd-vx...@ietf.org>>;nvo3@ietf.org
<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org> <nvo3@ietf.org
<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>>;santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com
<mailto:santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com> <santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com
<mailto:santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com>>;rtg-bfd WG <rtg-...@ietf.org
<mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>;Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com
<mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>>;tsrid...@vmware.com
<mailto:tsrid...@vmware.com> <tsrid...@vmware..com
<mailto:tsrid...@vmware.com>>;
*日 期 ：*2019年10月08日 12:15
*主 题 ：**Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at
VTEP*
Hi Xiao Min,
Is there a draft that describes MPLS over Geneve? It sounds like
the NVE is an MPLS router in this case and if you're using the same
VNI as you switch MPLS, then it's a one-armed router. That doesn't
change how BFD needs to be run between NVEs.
Anoop
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 7:28 PM <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn
<mailto:xiao.m...@zte.com.cn>> wrote:
Hi Anoop,
Sorry for the late response, I just come back from vacation.
The use case is that the network between the VM and the NVE is
an MPLS network, within which the packet is forwarded basing on
MPLS label, but not Ethernet MAC address and/or 802.1Q VLAN.
When two such kind of MPLS networks need to communicate with
each other, through a Geneve tunnel, the encap I illustrated
would be used.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
原始邮件
*发件人：*AnoopGhanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu
<mailto:an...@alumni.duke.edu>>
*收件人：*肖敏10093570;
*抄送人：*Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com
<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>>;did...@gmail.com
<mailto:did...@gmail.com> <did...@gmail.com
<mailto:did...@gmail.com>>;draft-ietf-bfd-vx...@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-ietf-bfd-vx...@ietf.org>
<draft-ietf-bfd-vx...@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-ietf-bfd-vx...@ietf.org>>;nvo3@ietf.org
<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org> <nvo3@ietf.org
<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>>;santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com
<mailto:santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com>
<santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com
<mailto:santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com>>;rtg-bfd WG
<rtg-...@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>;Joel M. Halpern
<j...@joelhalpern.com
<mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>>;tsrid...@vmware.com
<mailto:tsrid...@vmware.com> <tsrid...@vmware.com
<mailto:tsrid...@vmware.com>>;
*日 期 ：*2019年09月28日 05:36
*主 题 ：**Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control
packet at VTEP*
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 <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn
<mailto:xiao.m...@zte.com.cn>> 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 <an...@alumni.duke.edu
<mailto:an...@alumni.duke.edu>>
*收件人：*肖敏10093570;
*抄送人：*Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com
<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>>;did...@gmail.com
<mailto:did...@gmail.com> <did...@gmail.com
<mailto:did...@gmail.com>>;draft-ietf-bfd-vx...@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-ietf-bfd-vx...@ietf.org>
<draft-ietf-bfd-vx...@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-ietf-bfd-vx...@ietf.org>>;nvo3@ietf.org
<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org> <nvo3@ietf.org
<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>>;santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com
<mailto:santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com>
<santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com
<mailto:santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com>>;rtg-bfd WG
<rtg-...@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>;Joel M. Halpern
<j...@joelhalpern.com
<mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>>;tsrid...@vmware.com
<mailto:tsrid...@vmware.com> <tsrid...@vmware.com
<mailto:tsrid...@vmware.com>>;bfd-cha...@ietf.org
<mailto:bfd-cha...@ietf.org> <bfd-cha...@ietf.org
<mailto:bfd-cha...@ietf.org>>;
*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 <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn
<mailto:xiao.m...@zte.com.cn>> 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 <an...@alumni.duke.edu
<mailto:an...@alumni.duke.edu>>
*收件人：*肖敏10093570;
*抄送人：*Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com
<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>>;did...@gmail.com
<mailto:did...@gmail.com> <did...@gmail.com
<mailto:did...@gmail.com>>;draft-ietf-bfd-vx...@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-ietf-bfd-vx...@ietf.org>
<draft-ietf-bfd-vx...@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-ietf-bfd-vx...@ietf.org>>;nvo3@ietf.org
<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org> <nvo3@ietf.org
<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>>;santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com
<mailto:santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com>
<santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com
<mailto:santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com>>;rtg-bfd WG
<rtg-...@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>;Joel M.
Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com
<mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>>;tsrid...@vmware.com
<mailto:tsrid...@vmware.com> <tsrid...@vmware.com
<mailto:tsrid...@vmware.com>>;bfd-cha...@ietf.org
<mailto:bfd-cha...@ietf.org> <bfd-cha...@ietf.org
<mailto:bfd-cha...@ietf.org>>;
*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
nvo3@ietf.org <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>
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 <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.
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
nvo3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
