Prasad,
Thanks for your review comments. Please see inline comments.
> 1) Fig 3 of draft-ashwood-nvo3-oam-requirements provides the context for
> OAM layering in NVO3. Though, an individual draft at the moment, I submit
> that we consider this for providing more context to the discussion here.
Sure but how? Do you think having layer diagram in the BFD for VXLAN document
and show where it really works?
> 2) Per my understanding of your proposal, the intent is to use BFD for OAM
> at the NV edge layer. Please let me know if this understanding is incorrect.
Yes that correct BFD will be working at NV edge layer and not at tenant layer.
> 3) The clarifications requested earlier this thread concern about the inner IP
> address (SIP in particular) of the BFD packet . Would they be used from the
> overlay IP address space (belonging to the tenant). If this is the case, what
> would the difference between a BFD session using the tenant IP (at the NV
> edge), a particular VNI, and that of a service layer OAM session that can be
> run using single-hop BFD (RFC 5880).
We are not using tenant IP address in the inner IP header and we will be using
127/8 range address. I think question was w.r.t inner MAC address which is not
clear in the draft. Correct me if I am wrong.
> In other words, how can the OAM (BFD in this case) operating at the NV Edge
> layer operate without using IP from the Tenant layer if the packet is required
> to be VxLAN encapsulated?
BFD packet should not be routed and hence the use of non-routable address in
inner IP address. With the help of VXLAN header (VNI) we should be able to
associate the BFD packet with a tunnel.
Thanks
Santosh P K
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Santosh P K [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 3:03 PM
> To: MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)
> Cc: Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi); [email protected]
> Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan-00.txt
>
> 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]" <rtg-
> [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
>
