Re: [IPFIX] [sfc] FW: I-D Action: draft-kumar-ipfix-sfc-extension-00.txt

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sun, 26 April 2015 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2C1E1A882B; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 yUN8ufYZpa2m; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D3021A8772; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7B724061E; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (ip-64-134-97-72.public.wayport.net [64.134.97.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D43B9240173; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <553D6926.40507@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:39:34 -0400
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <naikumar@cisco.com>, "ipfix@ietf.org" <ipfix@ietf.org>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
References: <D162C3E7.23ACA%naikumar@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D162C3E7.23ACA%naikumar@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/SC8S6EHdDK7867HHee_gaXAJhZU>
Cc: "draft-kumar-ipfix-sfc-extension@tools.ietf.org" <draft-kumar-ipfix-sfc-extension@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] [sfc] FW: I-D Action: draft-kumar-ipfix-sfc-extension-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list <ipfix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipfix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 22:40:50 -0000

I am wondering if the nextSFF fields really belong here?
I see several problems with them.  If the observation is being made 
before the SF, or between multiple local SF, then the information does 
not exist.  Even if the observation is being made after the last local 
SF, the identification of the next SFF, as understood by this SFF, may 
well not be an IP address.  What the local SFF knows may be an IP 
address, and Ethernet Address, an MPLS label, etc.  So I am not sure 
this makes sense as a reportable.

Otherwise, it looks quite reasonable and useful.

Yours,
Joel

On 4/26/15 4:35 PM, Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Below is the draft proposed on IPFIX information elements for SFC.
>
> We welcome any comments/feedbacks.
>
> Regards,
> Draft Authors.
>
> On 3/9/15, 8:49 AM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>>
>>
>>         Title           : IPFIX Information Element extension for SFC
>>         Authors         : Nagendra Kumar
>>                           Carlos Pignataro
>>                           Paul Quinn
>> 	Filename        : draft-kumar-ipfix-sfc-extension-00.txt
>> 	Pages           : 11
>> 	Date            : 2015-03-09
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    Service Function Chaining (SFC) is an architecture that enables any
>>    operator to apply selective set of services by steering the traffic
>>    through an ordered set of service functions without any topology
>>    dependency.
>>
>>    This document defines the required Information Elements to represent
>>    the details about service flows over any Service Function Path.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumar-ipfix-sfc-extension/
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumar-ipfix-sfc-extension-00
>>
>>
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>> submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> sfc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>