Hi Xiao Min, Normally, I think of a VNI as a broadcast domain. The only way I can make sense of the picture below is to have a separate VNI for each MPLS interface on the NVE.
Anoop On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 11:09 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Anoop, > > > In this use case there is no forwarding happens between the MPLS and > non-MPLS parts, would this use case be prohibited? > > If the answer is yes, then I agree that all Tenant Systems attached to a > common NVE MUST share a VAP so long as they connect to the same VN, > although in RFC8014 it uses "can" but not "MUST". As a result, we should > not allow multiple BFD sessions for the same VNI between two NVEs. > > If the answer is no, then we should allow multiple BFD sessions for the > same VNI between two NVEs. I personally lean to this answer. > > > 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]>; > *日 期 ：*2019年10月09日 06:28 > *主 题 ：**Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP* > Hi Xiao Min, > The picture doesn't have enough information to explain why they are in the > same VNI, and exactly how forwarding happens between the MPLS and non-MPLS > parts. > > Anoop > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:31 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Anoop, >> >> >> I don't know such a draft that describes MPLS over Geneve, but I believe >> the following figure derived from figure 1 of RFC8014 would help, in the >> following figure Tenant System1, Tenant System2, Tenant System3 and Tenant >> System4 are assumed belonging to the same VNI, so two BFD sessions for the >> same VNI need to be run between NVE1 and NVE2. >> >> +--------+ >> +----| Tenant | >> ( ' ) | System1| >> ................ ( MPLS ) +--------+ >> . . +--+-+ ( _ ) >> . .--|NVE1|---+ >> . . | | >> . . +--+-+ >> . . | >> . L3 Overlay . ( ' ) >> . Network . (Ethernet) >> . . ( _ ) >> . . | >> ................ +--------+ >> | | Tenant | >> +----+ | System2| >> |NVE2| +--------+ >> | |--------+ >> +----+ | >> | | >> ( ' ) ( ' ) >> ( MPLS ) (Ethernet) >> ( _ ) ( _ ) >> | | >> +--------+ +--------+ >> | Tenant | | Tenant | >> | System3| | System4| >> +--------+ +--------+ >> >> >> 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]>; >> *日 期 ：*2019年10月08日 12:15 >> *主 题 ：**Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP* >> Hi Xiao Min, >> Is there a draft that describes MPLS over Geneve? It sounds like the NVE >> is an MPLS router in this case and if you're using the same VNI as you >> switch MPLS, then it's a one-armed router. That doesn't change how BFD >> needs to be run between NVEs. >> >> Anoop >> >> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 7:28 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Anoop, >>> >>> >>> Sorry for the late response, I just come back from vacation. >>> >>> The use case is that the network between the VM and the NVE is an MPLS >>> network, within which the packet is forwarded basing on MPLS label, but not >>> Ethernet MAC address and/or 802.1Q VLAN. When two such kind of MPLS >>> networks need to communicate with each other, through a Geneve tunnel, the >>> encap I illustrated would be used. >>> >>> >>> 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]>; >>> *日 期 ：*2019年09月28日 05:36 >>> *主 题 ：**Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP* >>> Hi Xiao Min, >>> Thanks for the details about the encap but the use case is not clear. >>> It might help if you explain why its necessary to map a physical Ethernet >>> port and/or 802.1Q VLAN to the same VNI as an MPLS packet without an L2 >>> header. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Anoop >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 7:50 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Anoop, >>>> >>>> >>>> Due to the fact that a variety of Tunnels could be used under the NVO3 >>>> architecture, >>>> as an example, below figure illustrates the format of MPLS packet over >>>> Geneve Tunnel. >>>> >>>> 0 1 2 3 >>>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>> | | >>>> ~ Outer Ethernet Header ~ >>>> | | >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>> | | >>>> ~ Outer IPvX Header ~ >>>> | | >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>> | | >>>> ~ Outer UDP Header ~ >>>> | | >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>> | | >>>> ~ Geneve Header ~ >>>> | | >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ >>>> | | | >>>> ~ MPLS Label Stack ~ M >>>> | | P >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ L >>>> | | S >>>> | | >>>> ~ Payload ~ P >>>> | | K >>>> | | T >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ >>>> | FCS | >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>> >>>> >>>> Note that in NVO3 working group Greg and I have submitted an individual >>>> draft draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve, which is used to address BFD over Geneve. >>>> >>>> The intention is to make the two drafts draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan and >>>> draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve aligned, that is to say, we try to define the >>>> identical mechanism for the common part of BFD over VxLAN Tunnel and BFD >>>> over Geneve Tunnel. For the common part, draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve would >>>> reference to draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan, and for the other part specific to >>>> Geneve, we'll define the specific mechanism in draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve. >>>> >>>> >>>> Hope that clarifies. >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 23:16 >>>> *主 题 ：**Re: [nvo3] BFD over VXLAN: Trapping BFD Control packet at VTEP* >>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >
