IETF110 NVO3 WG agenda ---------------------- Network Virtualisation Overlays WG Monday, March 8 (15:30-16:30 CET） 1. WG Status update (WG Chairs, 10 min) Agenda bashing. OAM drafts in progress and YANG model in progress. Some discussion on what to complete that is valuable to the community before the wg is done. Sam as individual: two drafts now, bfd and oam solution. Do we have plan to go forward with the oam solution draft? Greg: oam draft was adopted last year. Hope to have LC issued and comments will come and we'll address then comments by next meeting. Matthew: we have mechanisms to have wider review, such routing area review. Greg: great idea, ask rtg directorate early review. We are committed to work. Doc status. One new RFC published. Data plane encap (nvo3-encap-05) is a valuable draft documenting the experience of one wg in picking an encap when three were multiple candidates on the table, and we promised to publish it. It had no sufficient review during last call. We need some consensus to move it forward. So one possible way is to have another round of LC and we'd like to see much better buy-in from the working group on progressing with this. Authors are not so active right now, we need an active editor to help to move it forward. Also for draft nvo3-vxlan-gpe, we probably need a LC as well. We're going to have to look for fairly significant interest from WG and some comments and proper level of review in order to progress this. EVPN applicablity to geneve draft is now with Martin and it is held in his queue waiting for a companion draft in the bess wg that shows the bgp extensions requried for Geneve. We are waiting for the progress of that. VMM draft was sent back to wg after review by Martin. The comment was it's not specific to nvo3. Martin (AD): For this doc, I communicated back to wg my expections. I know Donald worked a bit to help rework the document, but there are a number of questions that WG needs to bring an answer to. It would be great to drive the discussions to see whre it leads. Yang cfg doc Sam (shepherd):I received the request from the authors yesterday. I have two action items for that. The first one is that I have to get review comments from yang doctors and I'll try to prepare for issuing the LC. 2. Geneve BFD (Xiao Min, 15 minutes) draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve Xiao Min presenting. Matthew: It would be worth getting rtg area review and possibly bfd group review. Sam: what is the decision for dest IP, local host type address? Xiao min: for ipv4, choose from a range 127.0.0.0/8, for ipv6,::1/128 Sam: so destination host which is processing the bfd frames needs to open a UDP socket for 127.0.0.0/8 address? Xiao min: Yes Sam: Interesting. Is it done similarly for vxlan as well or is it purely for Geneve? Xiao Min: RFC8971 bfd for vxlan solution is for management VNI. Our draft provides for non-managemnet VNI solution. so they are different. Greg: When we discussed bfd for vxlan, it was pointed out that IPv4 loopback addresses mapped in IPv6, they don't have a special meaning. So the only lookback ip address that exists in ipv6 is ::1/128. So functionally for ipv6 if we use a loopback address range for ipv4 addresses, then in ipv6 we can only use a single address ::1/128. That's what recommended in geneve oam document that ip encapsulated control packets use addresses from ipv4 loopback range or ::1/128 for ipv6. In that regard bfd document and geneve oam document are consistent. Sam: I see. So purely for v4 in this case, if you don't have ip on the source and also ip on the destination, so you are planning to use 127 address, is that right? Greg: I would imagine the tenant has no IP but the NVE will have IP. Wouldn't that be the case? Sam: I am just echoing the issues at hand in the slides where you mentioned no IP. So I was a little bit curious so NVEs do no have IPs. Greg: Because it wants to test as much as possible their infrastructure. If no IP, I will imagine ethernet encap will be in place. Sam: ok. I will take a look at it. Xiao Min: This draft only describes non-management VNI solution. We provide two encaps, one is BFD IP over Geneve, the other is bfd over Ethernet over Geneve. For the second one, there is scenario that VAP of originating or terminating NVE has no IP address. There are open questions in the slides just mentioned regarding this specific scenario. Matthew: please review the drafts. Session closed.