Re: [bess] Comment on draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining-06

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Thu, 20 December 2018 01:16 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C27312D4E9; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 17:16:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2y4AH6Wj9AbC; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 17:16:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x733.google.com (mail-qk1-x733.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE628126C01; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 17:16:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x733.google.com with SMTP id r71so32666qkr.10; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 17:16:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DteD/7aSITvdNK3OU8cL+hiYGmcfCRgAzpFS0vjbrM8=; b=q5ZJhvpWOttedi8e8rKemDbkFLWLdKYtv+fewWZl1NmBCjz5yPn7A92/bA9UNOLXuZ bjzAeo4NhQzHhYPKfWrBFzphQH4mVav4vKO1gmtoy+TFFoDycqpqPhyEeB/dNflrnKFC zdbliRs8zCdkvTFFp9vEelGdlmSoEqrwrWHIDO5zFb97PLAR+xoXD/4tBy8dBsh0rQtA 8ESF/4OzwzLN976KRYyB3be6Yq9d1hNbFmbBXfETtNVecY+5NT37RI3ZqcrGtpBfbTdE YzpM8+FA+9lhMB1J5JBAoLFu10GfuSIrlhLxX9yGYXFQBqBbE6kusIwaoKdKXOKMxD9I esbA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DteD/7aSITvdNK3OU8cL+hiYGmcfCRgAzpFS0vjbrM8=; b=nr4gqs5xdWrH7ywI8bt/ra3u8VTN+A3SKQZrG3AuS33/3FFWHXKlmGr9u4J7sHRxwF gudi38VFApkicP4XPRz4ya8OTD2ydxFfT74iMWF3/NI24va8loNn771RoBQJEsSLP/1D S/NCXVA0+pJJrOBroyh3FkP/d6TikuuEe7quW0Wze37ritwn1Db+tznUa7333z7FHY75 X95mF0noA28K9APTiV9SIF7BtnGypxtdICOuCi2DBx4OGpH0bWxz1Mfvb6R9Is7SSW9u 22bnxJMe7iLyPzP17TxM0rzCwXRJx4fmwKtbxj9WcWaq4mMn+vWTOuqrrisrvUBt3f5d 5GQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbex5QdVCA5AZxOisKAAdM0KPAxZTYSA2RM2BDUKxAMXkXPRa8s 2T/5kfSZmErZ/7oJvKwEqhpowREwn4MGlT/ltW9hTfwP
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/W3opGpMgZEUQCwY2xFY15RSvil+RgjbnN4h/AQ0mI85kBh3j33j8RvPylhaIQKMyN/hIwXjtF9QpkBffP8G8g=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:781:: with SMTP id 123mr22593923qkh.231.1545268613833; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 17:16:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAA=duU3_GmkVyHkoRMLvw6kEFaRF2Cd=P+2-q0H5afMUfF3LgA@mail.gmail.com> <81380B9D-9064-4EF1-A83E-E300E5B8D810@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <81380B9D-9064-4EF1-A83E-E300E5B8D810@juniper.net>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 20:16:42 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA=duU2Eg=S_-6DDa55X1=kkkaDomDqiWTixMrj-vSiNPBiyXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: wsmackie@juniper.net
Cc: bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cf6880057d69e253"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/MBRqmumF6lbX14gl7mSuWZDx0qM>
Subject: Re: [bess] Comment on draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining-06
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 01:16:57 -0000

Stuart,

Thanks for your reply. I can see your point about wanting to do service
chaining without the NSH (as I'm sure you're aware, draft-ietf-mpls-sfc is
another example of this), but would you never have the need for service
chain per-packet metadata as it's being used in the SFC WG?

Even if the answer to that question is currently no, my other point remains
that this draft provides an excellent label distribution mechanism for NSH
over MPLS, which usage I'm confident will be defined in the future. I agree
that doesn't require an anticipatory reference in the draft. But it might
be nice ... :-)

Cheers,
Andy


On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 5:59 PM Stuart Mackie <wsmackie@juniper.net> wrote:

> Hi Andy,
>
>
>
> I‘m struggling to make the connection, since
> draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining is specifically about how to do service
> chaining without needing a new protocol like NSH, so SFF labels would never
> be used.
>
>
>
> In draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining , if MPLS transport were used between
> Service Function Forwarders, a label would be allocated for a SF interface
> when a route pointing to it is installed (by the controller). This would be
> advertised to the controller and from there sent to the forwarders with
> egress interfaces for the previous SF in the chain. The label would be used
> at the bottom of the MPLS stack as is done normally.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Stuart
>
> -914 886 2534
>
>
>
> *From: *"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 5:10 PM
> *To: *"bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>rg>, "
> draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining@ietf.org>
> *Cc: *"draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Comment on draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining-06
> *Resent-From: *<alias-bounces@ietf.org>
> *Resent-To: *<rex@cisco.com>om>, <wsmackie@juniper.net>et>, <dhrao@cisco.com>om>, <
> brunorijsman@gmail.com>gt;, <mnapierala@att.com>om>, <thomas.morin@orange.com>
> *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 5:10 PM
>
>
>
> I just read the new revision of draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining. Although
> the draft doesn't use the RFC 8300 NSH, it could very easily take advantage
> of features provided by the NSH (such as metadata) by adding NSH over MPLS
> as defined in draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation to the list of
> encapsulations listed in section 2.5. And this draft provides an excellent
> label distribution mechanism for NSH over MPLS. It would make a lot of
> sense to add a reference to draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation in the list
> of encapsulations in section 2.5.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andy
>
>
>