Mallik, Thanks for your review comments.
>1. It is not clear if this draft is addressing both VM to VM and VTEP to VTEP >verification through BFD. I assume it is both. Draft is applicable only for VTEP to VTEP, for VM to VM (if VM is L3 aware) BFD as per RFC 5880/5881 should work as it is. VM's will not be aware of any tunnel. Draft talks about tunnel verification which terminates at VTEP's. >2. If the VMs are Layer 2 only, then what is the inner IP address (especially >source IP)? I understand that outer IP is going to carry the VTEPs addresses. As mentioned in the draft it would be outgoing interface IP sending VTEP. >3. Why is the inner IP destination address 127/8 or 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104? I >understand that it is to avoid the packet being routed but, how can an IP >packet addressed to a particular VTEP be consumed by any other node in the >network and then route the inner >payload? The same argument holds true for MPLS as well right? The motivation for using the address range 127/8 is the same as described in Section 2.1 of RFC4379. >4. The service node's use case is not very clear. Mat be you can add a little >bit of details here. Yes, we can do that. >5. I understand that VTEP knows that the packet is to be terminated at the >VTEP based on TTL being 1. What about the case of VM to VM BFD? What should be >the TTL value here? Is it 255 or something different? It is hardcoded to "1" >in the draft. VM's will use normal Async BFD so will use TTL 255. >6. Since we are using a destination UDP port of 3784, shouldn't the TTL be 255 >to be consistent with the RFC 5880? Section 7 of RFC 5884 also mentions use of IP TTL set to 1 whereas UDP port number set to 3784. Thanks Santosh P K From: "Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, 6 May 2015 9:39 am To: Santosh P K <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan-00.txt Hello Santosh/ Authors, Thanks for sharing the document, please find a few thoughts below. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 5. Inner TTL: For the same reasons discussed in (2), why does the document mandate this to be set to 1? 6. It may be beneficial to run a spell-checker to fix typos in the document. I request the authors/ WG to comment on the above aspects. Thanks Prasad -----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
