Hi What is a service node?
Thx Sd > Hi Prasad , > > I don't see how you get more coverage having a VXLAN tag. > > Since you are not testing the VXLAN based VFI/VRF forwarding. By that I mean > you are not testing (DA, VXLAN ) or (DIP, VXLAN) forwarding. > GVP1> One of the aspects of the next version of the draft will have a valid > inner DIP instead of 127/8. This should help address your concern to an > extent. > Also you are not testing the mapping from AC (Attachment Circuit) to a VXLAN > tag. > GVP1> Agreed, this aspect has not (yet) been addressed by RFC5884 as well, > not using it as an excuse but I am just noting the precedent here. > > In my opinion all you are testing, is that at the other end of an IP Tunnel a > specific VXLAN exist or not. Which does not require running continuous BFD. > GVP1> There are specific use-cases (see note about Service Node reachability > in Sec 2 of the draft) that require continuous monitoring of some > special-purpose VTEPs. > > In my opinion this is a very in efficient way of getting that information. > The controller should be able to get this information much more efficiently. > > It would be good if you can provide an example of what you think is more > coverage than BFD. Or at least what extra coverage do you exactly have in > mind, since this draft is not capable of more coverage than standard BFD over > the IP tunnel. > > Regards, > Shahram Regards, Shahram > On Jun 27, 2015, at 7:06 AM, Shahram Davari <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Prasad , > > I don't see how you get more coverage having a VXLAN tag. > > Since you are not testing the VXLAN based VFI/VRF forwarding. By that I mean > you are not testing (DA, VXLAN ) or (DIP, VXLAN) forwarding. > GVP1> One of the aspects of the next version of the draft will have a valid > inner DIP instead of 127/8. This should help address your concern to an > extent. > Also you are not testing the mapping from AC (Attachment Circuit) to a VXLAN > tag. > GVP1> Agreed, this aspect has not (yet) been addressed by RFC5884 as well, > not using it as an excuse but I am just noting the precedent here. > > In my opinion all you are testing, is that at the other end of an IP Tunnel a > specific VXLAN exist or not. Which does not require running continuous BFD. > GVP1> There are specific use-cases (see note about Service Node reachability > in Sec 2 of the draft) that require continuous monitoring of some > special-purpose VTEPs. > > In my opinion this is a very in efficient way of getting that information. > The controller should be able to get this information much more efficiently. > > It would be good if you can provide an example of what you think is more > coverage than BFD. Or at least what extra coverage do you exactly have in > mind, since this draft is not capable of more coverage than standard BFD over > the IP tunnel. > > Regards, > Shahram
