From what I can tell, there are two separate problems.
The document we have is a VTEP-VTEP monitoring document. There is no
need for that document to handle the multiple VNI case.
If folks want a protocol for doing BFD monitoring of things behind the
VTEPs (multiple VNIs), then do that as a separate document. The
encoding will be a tenant encoding, and thus sesparate from what is
defined in this document.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/21/2019 5:07 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
Santosh and others,
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 07:50:20PM +0530, Santosh P K wrote:
Thanks for your explanation. This helps a lot. I would wait for more
comments from others to see if this what we need in this draft to be
supported based on that we can provide appropriate sections in the draft.
The threads on the list have spidered to the point where it is challenging
to follow what the current status of the draft is, or should be. :-)
However, if I've followed things properly, the question below is really the
hinge point on what our encapsulation for BFD over vxlan should look like.
Correct?
Essentially, do we or do we not require the ability to permit multiple BFD
sessions between distinct VAPs?
If this is so, do we have a sense as to how we should proceed?
-- Jeff
[context preserved below...]
Santosh P K
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:10 AM <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
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
