As I recall, the VNI is not in the same place nor the same size as the
TCP / UDP ports. So it seems very unlikely that it would be used in
ECMP. In fact, avoiding that is why VXLAN does interesting things with
the source UDP port. Which the BFD can do. And presumably MUST do if
it was path matching.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/22/2019 3:16 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
Hi Joel,
if the underlay may balance VXLAN between two VTEPs using VNI in
addition to other fields, then Option 2 has a certain value in my opinion.
Regards,
Greg
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 3:06 PM Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com
<mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
I do not understand the value of option 2.
Which is why I asked in my initial review to move to option 1.
And option 2 requires stealing MAC addresses from the users, which
seems
to me to be a very bad thing that option 1 avoids.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/22/2019 2:17 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Anoop, et al.,
> I agree with your understanding of what is being defined in the
current
> version of the BFD over VxLAN specification. But, as I
understand, the
> WG is discussing the scope before the WGLC is closed. I believe
there
> are three options:
>
> 1. single BFD session between two VTEPs
> 2. single BFD session per VNI between two VTEPs
> 3. multiple BFD sessions per VNI between two VTEPs
>
> The current text reflects #2. Is WG accepts this scope? If not,
which
> option WG would accept?
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:09 PM Anoop Ghanwani
<an...@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:an...@alumni.duke.edu>
> <mailto:an...@alumni.duke.edu <mailto:an...@alumni.duke.edu>>> wrote:
>
> I concur with Joel's assessment with the following
clarifications.
>
> The current document is already capable of monitoring
multiple VNIs
> between VTEPs.
>
> The issue under discussion was how do we use BFD to monitor
multiple
> VAPs that use the same VNI between a pair of VTEPs. The use case
> for this is not clear to me, as from my understanding, we cannot
> have a situation with multiple VAPs using the same VNI--there
is 1:1
> mapping between VAP and VNI.
>
> Anoop
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 6:06 AM Joel M. Halpern
<j...@joelhalpern.com <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>
> <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>>> wrote:
>
> 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
<mailto:xiao.m...@zte.com.cn>
> <mailto: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
>
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> nvo3@ietf.org <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org> <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org
<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
