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

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Tue, 04 December 2018 22:10 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 0FBE51294D7; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:10:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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] 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 tW7rHM6d6ITg; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:10:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x742.google.com (mail-qk1-x742.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::742]) (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 B71601200B3; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:10:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x742.google.com with SMTP id d19so10690429qkg.5; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 14:10:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XlahMMGSqjD5zRES9b17Q8M2JxErNj+WB/LrpOmLBeI=; b=YPp/6iMno0OMpWzBs5Zr4+5QbitQJU1wsBt8NFMyRlbX5PF5XuIudzg7ny8SDlxwBZ n+lnO3cXz7rNLfR6pNNEyEkvacVL5pLq1+SYgK/7ZqPoL/z+za+aVbtQ5VcG+2jSORF3 3jjRxCnbKcG96KsVHajpBGpMhw6CXQj/gTrQQJ1O9Ge7gu/0cye91dy6ekCIWXzjzfmt DImU8S2P0b+fDPvl4KfoLkiX8QPzh0vtQg/iWblC9vxeUiqyWTqtepjmuOhEWEdiAEYI eyIbkiyl5uXzSSSBeRrL7zO3mbSRmBWgVA6Py3WCIwPGN2xOC/w/SQoCK2aB4iXWteO+ I36Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XlahMMGSqjD5zRES9b17Q8M2JxErNj+WB/LrpOmLBeI=; b=Ex0HS4T2CL4NyIjtJs8kkv2FlUg4g0Ob81cX4PBLXxljmVoPxNmUAKe5g9X7ECu7PU GE7S0bxxhs/HvgTo9QQqQsqGrl60iOZf6sKGLRu2+1J+2UyHnGacI/uhjQdWES7QJITA rp5o/NqzLBq8tOa3Vfsk6Ote21VljizAQ+GTCf1hbez/Ih3ZuDdmtZ9zIGz+gHECaJJP fTJoN33fXXIwCceKLaFIY4hty0bP/Dr78kc8m81RlI83LEUWI7Bc113sJdhGNhoP8piY ETcAczSvh8FFXP7JRkHstEiCvLGNZdkPSiNa+epmkUM31/nf2JoXaEnQwHKKkjALndbI XH2w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZloyLkmGBZwPdEDQ/yxuAaYmFmyRvKUwhl80wy+VbI4dqRwcwc s7A8Sf/p9RAp7gybA+v1J+gzUHd5hsY6coPhvSkuHB/7
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/W/XJ2W9g4DWeYwlJYzvDEA+Z5sKbMkXE7/trQ/fzp44P0dGG8wJ/kHUV48OEe7t9/mjR+3R5OZp/Yv/dWK+vQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:4651:: with SMTP id t78mr20058960qka.210.1543961419594; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 14:10:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:10:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA=duU3_GmkVyHkoRMLvw6kEFaRF2Cd=P+2-q0H5afMUfF3LgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f641cd057c3987a6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/XlA8tN7HoNDCGMEKlc-E3nDmi_U>
Subject: [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: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 22:10:22 -0000

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