Subject: [Rtg-ooam-dt] MoM 04/26/2016

From: Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 21:26:27 +0000

Present: David, Nagendra, Deepak, Mach, Erik, Yizhou, Greg

Yizhou presented list of scenarios that require consideration for BFD in NVO3 (slides attached). Among those:

*         Would BFD be required to monitor each and every available path in ECMP environment. We don't see that as the requirement for proactive Continuity Check OAM for an overlay network. ECMPs may be monitored in the underlay to support protection. Overlay should coordinate parameters, i.e. defect detection interval, with the underlay.

*         Establishing BFD multi-hop session may require bootstrapping, especially if IP/UDP format of BFD not used. Bootstrapping to be supported by Common Ping/Traceroute similar to functionality provided by LSP Ping with BFD Discriminator TLV. In NVO3 case, BFD session may be identified with the specific VNI similarly to identification with FEC in LSP Ping. And similarly to RFC 5884 we can suggest, i.e. SHOULD, that Ping with VNI ID be used concurrently to monitor liveliness of the specified VNI ID. Alternatively, or optionally, the remote end may be required to set Diag flag if and when the VNI is not available. (Need to iron this)

*          Encapsulations:

o   base our proposal on the assumption that NVO3 encapsulations, and overlay encapsulations that are in our scope in general,  explicitly identify active OAM payload, either through O(AM) flag or Protocol field. The format and type of active OAM then specified in OAM Header (need work out details through encapsulation examples);

o   encapsulation that doesn't comply with the assumption, e.g. GUE, would not be able to fully benefit from the common OAM. We'll stress that in the Gap Analysis document.

Please feel free to add, edit. Share your comments, questions.

                Regards,
                                Greg

---

From: Santosh P K <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:06:38 +0530

Hello Greg,
    Thanks for MOM. Lack of reminder made me miss this meeting as well.

There are few comments on BFD over NVO3.

>>Would BFD be required to monitor each and every available path in ECMP
environment. We don’t see that as the requirement for proactive Continuity
Check OAM for an overlay network. ECMPs >>may be monitored in the underlay
to support protection. Overlay should coordinate parameters, i.e. defect
detection interval, with the underlay.

As part of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan-03 draft
we have discussed this part and had come to conclusion that we really done
need to do it overlay as you have already mentioned.

>>·         Establishing BFD multi-hop session may require bootstrapping,
especially if IP/UDP format of BFD not used. Bootstrapping to be supported
by Common Ping/Traceroute similar to functionality >>provided by LSP Ping
with BFD Discriminator TLV. In NVO3 case, BFD session may be identified
with the specific VNI similarly to identification with FEC in LSP Ping. And
similarly to RFC 5884 we >>can suggest, i.e. SHOULD, that Ping with VNI ID
be used concurrently to monitor liveliness of the specified VNI ID.
Alternatively, or optionally, the remote end may be required to set Diag
flag if and >>when the VNI is not available. (Need to iron this).

Is this not something we did discuss during initial stage of above draft?

Thanks
Santosh P K

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]
> wrote:

> ·         Would BFD be required to monitor each and every available path
> in ECMP environment. We don’t see that as the requirement for proactive
> Continuity Check OAM for an overlay network. ECMPs may be monitored in the
> underlay to support protection. Overlay should coordinate parameters, i.e.
> defect detection interval, with the underlay.
>
> ·         Establishing BFD multi-hop session may require bootstrapping,
> especially if IP/UDP format of BFD not used. Bootstrapping to be supported
> by Common Ping/Traceroute similar to functionality provided by LSP Ping
> with BFD Discriminator TLV. In NVO3 case, BFD session may be identified
> with the specific VNI similarly to identification with FEC in LSP Ping. And
> similarly to RFC 5884 we can suggest, i.e. SHOULD, that Ping with VNI ID be
> used concurrently to monitor liveliness of the specified VNI ID.
> Alternatively, or optionally, the remote end may be required to set Diag
> flag if and when the VNI is not available. (Need to iron this)
>
> ·          Encapsulations:
>
> o   base our proposal on the assumption that NVO3 encapsulations, and
> overlay encapsulations that are in our scope in general,  explicitly
> identify active OAM payload, either through O(AM) flag or Protocol field.
> The format and type of active OAM then specified in OAM Header (need work
> out details through encapsulation examples);
>
> o   encapsulation that doesn’t comply with the assumption, e.g. GUE,
> would not be able to fully benefit from the common OAM. We’ll stress that
> in the Gap Analysis document.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rtg-ooam-dt mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-ooam-dt
>
>