Re: [bess] short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining

"Adrian Farrel" <> Sat, 12 January 2019 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2074E124BAA; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 09:01:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DidHTrz4Tm3p; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 09:01:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 444E61276D0; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 09:01:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x0CH14HU005235; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 17:01:04 GMT
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 412F52203C; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 17:01:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B1D922032; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 17:01:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x0CH11i7001336 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 12 Jan 2019 17:01:03 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <>
References: <22489_1547195850_5C3855CA_22489_270_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B78D02B@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <22489_1547195850_5C3855CA_22489_270_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B78D02B@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 17:00:59 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <04af01d4aa98$659ce900$30d6bb00$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_04B0_01D4AA98.659E6FA0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-gb
Thread-Index: AQG9a+ephCz0Kzw/R4gD+1OPPLxiYqXaVZtQ
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--36.462-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--36.462-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--36.461800-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: OoEa6u7Uk59BYmUAdSZaCPqjGBlBM41/V3mIvI1GjFcLt8T2ka0+E/Vg CcrBliQMF6z9HGHKwNtu/Xr6CKXiN7aPg60UHiQHCLART2+ARrNdwLU4GDRb2YkX6uGJLt7qPDG jsFceo+omZusHWPhfCuG/rsUP6wPW2RS36xMNhQ5nkEsuGK0jP7+znbs6XKgVCK1UCP4VdpIeh2 nHejoau2MdYzySsvg8XkAtH0iCZOw3Z3efQH+wj1iahZn2vpG3XKssW/dsKxCyHAQ4LHNtQQWIn rOFRfQxW7gz/Gbgpl6UctRw0zzl2oHOUIaMGMhaYuB8si+nmITrcFn67wIg3XdDp/5ZZ810W8L2 0qxZbUttD1qg9KZYkXLhUU/qa4OGzduAZBpLbsGv1j/2L7xP1nfaQQnIJagwjPpowsRL0a5qxwW KybSPipMgA7HxjxQjwAmJq+LNLt5RoxkQ7I6O9kf4H95wCoaZflNem6sLPgc9WczEbXUNv0HVBh hdjIz779yYlc0KhLRRFEFuj3PsdVMKNDaJeTWugtwAZPKo3WtBr12P4cAtZHbpxCR4FilDh38bn PLEpPG8coKUcaOOvVT5iq0BT4XZazN+RBde1YdLVOP6Sq/6G24Kqb0ahB2Jf6WytOayZdtroTn0 jEcZf/45MImNrSZyU+A7YkpDJ1g3bOTN6yNIvLiBt1Dvea2t0Nt5/j+aSDEUI4s17Ql301mKiy1 F9pgLupDIC9422DrTMQ/93vE8Xcbb+KR6EuFdAkZtb7fl6Fqh/9Db0raJ+12/J3quhJk9n0UoIZ 374hfbH8WaUL9qjLTxnpbCjruIclaePP5oVp4rX7h2N8kALK3WS3pROsBb6goQOpUkSb60P2qkG U0Xyj++5wafXR2mMTg/Zv+vvh/WZE2agTZEgZBe6xscEaVzTO/Z922fX9tgoBRauBKKauQE4E8n zF6/QdO8DQOAxSG+xx4wDnSLQw==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bess] short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 17:01:09 -0000



Thanks for bringing this back for another last call.


I think that the approach documented in this document is a fine solution for
a somewhat limited SFC deployment. It has the benefits of using existing
techniques and tools, and satisfies the need for a quick deployment solution
for SFC.


I am not convinced that this solution is scalable to complex chains or large
networks with very many chains, but that is not the point. We have other
solutions (as Andy notes) for those problems. Those other solutions may also
be more generic and widely applicable, ultimately covering the problem space
addressed by this draft, but that is not the point either.


Furthermore, as this solution is already shipping (if I understand various
claims correctly), it is worthwhile publishing.


The current version seems "good enough".





From: BESS <> On Behalf Of
Sent: 11 January 2019 08:37
Subject: [bess] short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining




The draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining [1] document failed its WGLC with
substantial comments received.

The document has been updated beginning of December and we would like to
know if people are now happy with the content of the new version.


This email starts a poll of 1 week to gather additional comments or

This work is an old one and we should close it asap.


The poll runs until *** Friday 18th January ****











Stephane Litkowski 
Network Architect 

Orange Expert Future Networks

vice%3DSIGNATURE%26to%3D+33%202%2023%2028%2049%2083%20> +33 2 23 06 49 83
vice%3DSIGNATURE%26to%3D+33%206%2037%2086%2097%2052%20> +33 6 71 63 27 50


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu
ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.