Hi Xiao Min, I think we would need more detail around the use case below. What does the MPLS packet over Tunnel look like?
Thanks, Anoop On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 11:37 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Anoop, > > > Thanks for your comments. > > Considering a scenario where TS1 has an MPLS access (i.e. MPLS-Packet over > Tunnel between NVEs) to VNI1, TS3 has an Ethernet access (i.e. MAC-Frame > over Tunnel between NVEs) to VNI1, then how can TS1 and TS3 share one VAP? > > > Best Regards, > > Xiao Min > 原始邮件 > *发件人：*AnoopGhanwani <[email protected]> > *收件人：*肖敏10093570; > *抄送人：*Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>;[email protected] < > [email protected]>;[email protected] < > [email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>;rtg-bfd WG < > [email protected]>;Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] < > [email protected]>; > *日 期 ：*2019年09月26日 08:36 > *主 题 ：**Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP* > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > >>> > Some people may argue that all Tenant Systems connecting to the same > Virtual Network MUST share one VAP, if that's true, then VAP1 and VAP3 > should merge into one VAP and my explanation doesn't work. Copying to NVO3 > WG to involve more experts, hope for your clarifications and comments. > >>> > > I would be one of those that would argue that they MUST share on VAP if > they connect to the same Virtual Network. IMO, the NVO3 arch doc should > have been clearer about this. > > Thanks, > Anoop > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 7:40 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Santosh, >> >> >> With regard to the question whether we should allow multiple BFD >> sessions for the same VNI or not, IMHO we should allow it, more explanation >> as follows... >> >> Below is a figure derived from figure 2 of RFC8014 (An Architecture for >> Data-Center Network Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3)). >> >> | Data Center Network (IP) | >> | | >> +-----------------------------------------+ >> | | >> | Tunnel Overlay | >> +------------+---------+ +---------+------------+ >> | +----------+-------+ | | +-------+----------+ | >> | | Overlay Module | | | | Overlay Module | | >> | +---------+--------+ | | +---------+--------+ | >> | | | | | | >> NVE1 | | | | | | NVE2 >> | +--------+-------+ | | +--------+-------+ | >> | |VNI1 VNI2 VNI1 | | | | VNI1 VNI2 VNI1 | | >> | +-+-----+----+---+ | | +-+-----+-----+--+ | >> |VAP1| VAP2| | VAP3 | |VAP1| VAP2| | VAP3| >> +----+-----+----+------+ +----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | | | | | | >> | | | | | | >> | | | | | | >> -------+-----+----+-------------------+-----+-----+------- >> | | | Tenant | | | >> TSI1 | TSI2| | TSI3 TSI1| TSI2| |TSI3 >> +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ >> |TS1| |TS2| |TS3| |TS4| |TS5| |TS6| >> +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ >> >> To my understanding, the BFD sessions between NVE1 and NVE2 are actually >> initiated and terminated at VAP of NVE. >> >> If the network operator want to set up one BFD session between VAP1 of >> NVE1 and VAP1of NVE2, at the same time another BFD session between VAP3 of >> NVE1 and VAP3 of NVE2, although the two BFD sessions are for the same >> VNI1, I believe it's reasonable, so that's why I think we should allow >> it. >> >> >> Of course, in RFC8014 it also says: >> >> "Note that two different Tenant Systems (and TSIs) attached to a common NVE >> can share a VAP (e.g., TS1 and TS2 in Figure 2) so long as they connect to >> the same Virtual Network." >> >> Some people may argue that all Tenant Systems connecting to the same >> Virtual Network MUST share one VAP, if that's true, then VAP1 and VAP3 >> should merge into one VAP and my explanation doesn't work. Copying to NVO3 >> WG to involve more experts, hope for your clarifications and comments. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Xiao Min >> > >
