Re: [forces] Adoption of ForCES Inter-FE LFB draft-joachimpillai-forces-interfelfb

While we can discuss things with the SFC group, I would note that:

1) They are targeting a format that is transport independent and that 
carries a service function path ID that is easily used for forwarding. 
Metadata is necessary, supported, but distinctly secondary.  ForCES does 
not have a notion of a path-ID selected by an initial classifier.  (That 
would ahve been a very different design, and harder for us to work with.)

2) They have proposals on the table, and are having discussions.  While 
we could come in with a late complication, as a participant who has been 
trying to get agreement I can work with, I would prefer not to do so.

Yours,
Joel

On 12/19/14 7:34 PM, Joachimpillai, Damascene M wrote:
> I agree with Joel's proposal on the metadata rewrite function.
> Initial thought was to have the metadata pre-determined. One can also
> publish and trim based on supported (sort of like capability
> exchange). Should this be bounced against the SFC WG document that
> talks about Service chaining? Just a thought.
>
> -- DJ
>
> -----Original Message----- From: forces
> [mailto:forces-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel Sent: Friday,
> December 19, 2014 6:22 PM To: Jamal Hadi Salim; forces@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [forces] Adoption of ForCES Inter-FE LFB
> draft-joachimpillai-forces-interfelfb
>
> I support adoption of this document by the working group.  The issue
> addressed is real, and suitable for IETF standardization.  The
> mechanisms described seems appropriate to the task.
>
> Once adopted, as Evangelos suggested, the working group should decide
> how to handle the case of inter-FE with the FEs controlled by
> different CEs.  I see two choices, either of which is reasonable.  We
> can declare that the scope is only inter-FE under control of a single
> CE, or we can declare that if there are two CEs they must agree
> out-of-band on the IDs for metadata.  (The one solution I would like
> to avoid is specifying a metadata rewrite function to transform the
> IDs at the border.)
>
> Yours, Joel
>
> On 12/10/14 9:40 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>> This is a re-initialized call for adoption. As per last meeting
>> discussion and charter requirements
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-joachimpillai-forces-interfelfb as
>> the WG document for the inter FE chartered work.
>>
>> If there are any objections or suggestions please raise them on
>> the list (dont send me or DJ private email). Silence implies
>> consent.
>>
>> The initial call for adoption was withdrawn because we wanted to
>> make sure we can get the code sane to the proposed ideas. We have
>> achieved that goal at this point.
>>
>> cheers, jamal
>>
>> _______________________________________________ forces mailing
>> list forces@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces
>>
>
> _______________________________________________ forces mailing list
> forces@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces
>