Hi Joel,
RFC 7348 suggests using information from the inner packet to calculate
the value to be used in the Source UDP port number:
- Source Port: It is recommended that the UDP source port number
be calculated using a hash of fields from the inner packet --
one example being a hash of the inner Ethernet frame's headers.
This is to enable a level of entropy for the ECMP/load-
balancing of the VM-to-VM traffic across the VXLAN overlay.
From that text, I assume that VNI may be used as input for hashing
function. If BFD over VXLAN doesn't support per VNI BFD session, then it
cannot monitor multiple paths in underlay used to balance VM-to-VM
traffic between the same pair of VTEPs. In my opinion, this is perfectly
fine if that is WG's agreement. I'm glad we are discussing this and will
have a conclusion.
Regards,
Greg
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 3:30 PM Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
As I recall, the VNI is not in the same place nor the same size as the
TCP / UDP ports. So it seems very unlikely that it would be used in
ECMP. In fact, avoiding that is why VXLAN does interesting things with
the source UDP port. Which the BFD can do. And presumably MUST do if
it was path matching.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/22/2019 3:16 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> if the underlay may balance VXLAN between two VTEPs using VNI in
> addition to other fields, then Option 2 has a certain value in my
opinion.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 3:06 PM Joel M. Halpern
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>
> I do not understand the value of option 2.
> Which is why I asked in my initial review to move to option 1.
>
> And option 2 requires stealing MAC addresses from the users,
which
> seems
> to me to be a very bad thing that option 1 avoids.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 10/22/2019 2:17 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> > Hi Anoop, et al.,
> > I agree with your understanding of what is being defined
in the
> current
> > version of the BFD over VxLAN specification. But, as I
> understand, the
> > WG is discussing the scope before the WGLC is closed. I
believe
> there
> > are three options:
> >
> > 1. single BFD session between two VTEPs
> > 2. single BFD session per VNI between two VTEPs
> > 3. multiple BFD sessions per VNI between two VTEPs
> >
> > The current text reflects #2. Is WG accepts this scope? If
not,
> which
> > option WG would accept?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:09 PM Anoop Ghanwani
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> > <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>> wrote:
> >
> > I concur with Joel's assessment with the following
> clarifications.
> >
> > The current document is already capable of monitoring
> multiple VNIs
> > between VTEPs.
> >
> > The issue under discussion was how do we use BFD to
monitor
> multiple
> > VAPs that use the same VNI between a pair of VTEPs.
The use case
> > for this is not clear to me, as from my understanding,
we cannot
> > have a situation with multiple VAPs using the same
VNI--there
> is 1:1
> > mapping between VAP and VNI.
> >
> > Anoop
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 6:06 AM Joel M. Halpern
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> > <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>> wrote:
> >
> > From what I can tell, there are two separate
problems.
> > The document we have is a VTEP-VTEP monitoring
document.
> There
> > is no
> > need for that document to handle the multiple VNI
case.
> > If folks want a protocol for doing BFD monitoring
of things
> > behind the
> > VTEPs (multiple VNIs), then do that as a separate
> document. The
> > encoding will be a tenant encoding, and thus sesparate
> from what is
> > defined in this document.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Joel
> >
> > On 10/21/2019 5:07 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > > Santosh and others,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 07:50:20PM +0530,
Santosh P K
> wrote:
> > >> Thanks for your explanation. This helps a
lot. I
> would
> > wait for more
> > >> comments from others to see if this what we
need in this
> > draft to be
> > >> supported based on that we can provide appropriate
> sections
> > in the draft.
> > >
> > > The threads on the list have spidered to the point
> where it
> > is challenging
> > > to follow what the current status of the draft
is, or
> should
> > be. :-)
> > >
> > > However, if I've followed things properly, the
> question below
> > is really the
> > > hinge point on what our encapsulation for BFD
over vxlan
> > should look like.
> > > Correct?
> > >
> > > Essentially, do we or do we not require the
ability to
> permit
> > multiple BFD
> > > sessions between distinct VAPs?
> > >
> > > If this is so, do we have a sense as to how we
should
> proceed?
> > >
> > > -- Jeff
> > >
> > > [context preserved below...]
> > >
> > >> Santosh P K
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:10 AM
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> > <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nvo3 mailing list
> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
> >
>
