Prasad, > I think there have been no documents or references cited to establish the > requirements driving the aspects of Destination IP to be 127/8 (discussed in 4 > below) and inner TTL to be 1 (discussed in 5 below).
Thanks for pointing that. We might have missed that and we can add that. > Both these observations led to the comment about the parallels of MPLS/ > PW. I think we may need to discuss the merits/ de-merits about the > alternate possibilities s of the DIP being the VTEP IP (of the intended BFD > destination) and the TTL being 255 as well. Sure. We can discuss on this point. Thanks Santosh P K > -----Original Message----- > From: Santosh P K [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 11:08 AM > To: Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi); [email protected] > Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan-00.txt > > Hello Prasad, > Thanks a lot for your review comments. > > > 1. The current document talks about both BFD and S-BFD - would it be > > beneficial to make separate documents for BFD and SBFD to maintain > > consistency with the current set of documents. > > There are lot less content for S-BFD to be a separate document but we are ok > with this being separate document if WG thinks so. > > > 2. Motivation: It would be nice to state the requirements or > > motivation that this draft addresses, i.e. what problems does this > > draft address that cannot be solved using the existing BFD/ SBFD > > protocol treating the VxLAN as a tunnel/ underlay transport transparent to > BFD. > > We have added use case scenarios which would explain why we need BFD > for VXLAN. As you suggested I also can capture motivation as well in the > document. > > >I would submit that BFD over > > VxLAN not be treated along the same lines of BFD over MPLS or BFD for > >PW > > (VCCV) given the differences in the nature of the transport between > >MPLS and VxLAN. > > I am not sure if I understood this comment? We not treating VXLAN as MPLS > or BFD VCCV tunnel all we are trying to do is run BFD to monitor VXLAN > tunnel. > > > 3. Inner Ethernet header: The document does not address the contents > > of the Inner Ethernet header (present after the VxLAN header). This > > needs to be specified. > > Since we did not modify the contents of inner Ethernet header we did not > mention that in draft. In NOV3 working group the same question came up > and we will be doing that in next version. > > > 4. Destination IP: The document mandates that this needs to be 127/8. > > What disadvantages do you observe if the DIP were to be the IP of the > > destination VTEP? When using 127/8 as the DIP. one problem is that > > there is no indication of the intended DIP of the BFD session by using > > 127/8. What if the node at which the VxLAN tunnel is (prematurely) > > terminated happens to support BFD? It may be better to use the IP > > address of the Destination VTEP as the DIP. > > Since this is a tunnel we do not want to the packet to be routed to VTEP if > there is a leak in tunnel. Hence we recommend 127/8 range, the same > principle applies for MPLS as well. > > > 5. Inner TTL: For the same reasons discussed in (2), why does the > > document mandate this to be set to 1? > > There are two ways to absorb the packet on VTEP's. > > 1. The above said method where we say set TTL to 1 so that when TTL expires > process the packet locally? > 2. Set the inner MAC destination MAC address to VTEP's or dedicated MAC > address so that packet is consumed by VTEP. > > > 6. It may be beneficial to run a spell-checker to fix typos in the document. > > Hmmm I did this exercise :) will do it again. > > > Thanks > Santosh P K > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Santosh P > > K > > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 10:55 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: FW: New Version Notification for > > draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan-00.txt > > > > Hello All, > > A new BFD for VXLAN draft has been submitted. Please do review and > > get back to us with any comments/feedback. > > > > Thanks > > Santosh P K > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 9:29 PM > > > To: Basil Saji; Santosh P K; Sudarsan Paragiri Mohan; Santosh P K; > > > Basil Saji; Sudarsan Paragiri Mohan > > > Subject: New Version Notification for > > > draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan-00.txt > > > > > > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan-00.txt > > > has been successfully submitted by Santosh Pallagatti and posted to > > > the IETF repository. > > > > > > Name: draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan > > > Revision: 00 > > > Title: BFD for VXLAN > > > Document date: 2015-05-04 > > > Group: Individual Submission > > > Pages: 9 > > > URL: > > > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-spallagatti-bfd- > > vxlan- > > > 00.txt > > > Status: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan/ > > > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan-00 > > > > > > > > > Abstract: > > > This document describes use of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection > > > (BFD) protocol for VXLAN . Comments on this draft should be directed > > > to [email protected]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > > > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at > tools.ietf.org. > > > > > > The IETF Secretariat
