Dear NVO3 WG,
This mail intends to share some open issues for draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve, and
ask for your review and comments.
For BFD-over-Ethernet-over-Geneve encap in Figure 1, if the VAP of the
terminating NVE has no IP address, for IPv6, whether the range
::ffff:127.0.0.0/104 or the address ::1/128, should be used? Within
draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-16 which is in RFC-Editor's Queue, the range
::ffff:127.0.0.0/104 is used, nevertheless we also heard opinion that the
address ::1/128 is the only loopback address for IPv6.
For BFD-over-Ethernet-over-Geneve encap in Figure 1, if the VAP of the
originating NVE has no IP address, whether the IP address of the originating
NVE, or the address 0.0.0.0 for IPv4 and the address 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0 for IPv6,
should be used? In my view, considering the possible address overlap between
the tenant space and the NVE space, the latter choice seems more secure.
BFD Demand Mode and BFD Echo function, whether there is a requirement to
support one or both of them? Within draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-16 which is in
RFC-Editor's Queue, only BFD asynchronous mode is in the scope, both BFD demand
mode and BFD echo function are outside the scope.
BFD Discriminator exchange mechanism, whether this draft needs to define a
mechanism for BFD discriminator exchange? In my view, this mechanism is
optional, and it can be achieved by EVPN, Geneve-Ping, Configuration, etc.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
