Re: [mpls] comments on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-01

Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Wed, 05 December 2018 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ghanwani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33993130F52 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 12:05:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.34
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.34 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 ywmPxCeTM19t for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 12:05:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-f54.google.com (mail-vs1-f54.google.com [209.85.217.54]) (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 99D82130F0F for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 12:05:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-f54.google.com with SMTP id x64so12875223vsa.5 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:05:00 -0800 (PST)
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=Wl9j8UVUtpT13hIh/+fndhz1aFmhPEAXImlOSItgf8g=; b=ce2dKIpeUSeMUvdc93od/cKpNhDxb7u7D1/Sbw2vWnB849tNT9Xs/+iSVnop82uyIt Nu8NtT8bDwF87Frc2RRAJ8Al122mxMbxi63Iknao6eFVsuUE4f7qadMIgMDIT/5GEnkG W6j4bQqMBKGg34JxkuInTRU0Ve5KsiRqH7AWihzhlSQvdxamJCQ0ENBUqT9y63Tij9Yx 49SppH0Jdoi4n3FKcVTkLW7I/oiwDA96T4sZKKnySiS/2uhqW7HZkVbOn7Z+zjf1lH0S +M/KkpeLDU6/DBgPDdL1A/WPBKT1+GBPHUvovu+yRmYlQX8ulzIWh+rixQ4NW0kBlh9q CpDw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWa6pinSqkQB8KxXn4NyQTgbB0C5Djsk9f410v9E73WutBYH8AT2 hWXHi44P61uiRInPLp80cw+5Z7DNFCubvmoaSeM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/UW6iRgX2u8vSsUZHG7CdMCl03OaxLvpOs1yUkPaW2JtrHtkHa7xa0T4uksb17m2Z9biC5LRhlAhc+qrGEPUX8=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:e214:: with SMTP id g20mr11190592vsa.162.1544040299242; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:04:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAA=duU3jt+cf3beJmwfAZQVWDGvCV1wmkQpUjxUqrzKkJVW_og@mail.gmail.com> <b6cc364b-6b03-d222-7320-ecabc1735ef5@pi.nu> <CA+-tSzyt8FG1JDOG0tkfySej3nwxA98T2=v+5LUUL0ZaAaD1AA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA=duU1wvhj8xbOctsTyTStJnSx695VOT8jOHPvmsCDm8H6_MQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+-tSzyY8avK7iWP-5fSV1wn+TrMBWxxS7-vNwfCOrvGzMPDQA@mail.gmail.com> <BN7PR05MB43549BA39FABBA890341BF0DC7A80@BN7PR05MB4354.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR05MB43549BA39FABBA890341BF0DC7A80@BN7PR05MB4354.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 12:04:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzxecfEGds4JEb-e++w9b9jKJDJBPg317kYRVUxfcCjSsA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008e55e0057c4be550"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/4xFwN-XGsBkAIs4Nc8iz1Q1Y_qw>
Subject: Re: [mpls] comments on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-01
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 20:05:07 -0000

Hi John,

It also allows for per-SFP or per-flow metadata.  Just doesn't allow for
per-packet metadata.

Thanks,
Anoop

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:47 AM John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> Comment inline
>
>
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Anoop Ghanwani
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 5, 2018 2:24 PM
> *To:* mpls@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] comments on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-01
>
>
>
> Hi Andy,
>
>
>
> Yes, I agree my comment wasn't complete.  Perhaps this is better:
>
> "using MPLS as a replacement for NSH (with some loss of functionality) is
> described elsewhere [x]."
>
>
>
> *[JD]  Using the MPLS label stack rather than the NSH to carry the Service
> Path Identifier (SPI) and Service Identifier (SI) is described in …*
>
>
>
> Also for the second comment, this may be better.
>
>
>
> "as a part of normal processing, the SFF Label becomes
>
> the top label in the stack."
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Anoop
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anoop,
>
>
>
> Thanks, I'll discuss these suggestions with my co-authors. Also, now that
> we've requested WG LC, Loa may want to treat this as a last call comment.
>
>
>
> Your first comment isn't quite correct, since draft-ietf-mpls-sfc only
> replaces some of the functions of the NSH. For example, there's no
> packet-by-packet metadata.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:57 PM Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
> wrote:
>
> I think it would be useful for this document to reference
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sfc
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dmpls-2Dsfc&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=GF5N7QRjSUOtBmx2p0R4gvpBoU5Wyz5nwfbCtE_IUgI&s=db-AmKlTRZlCB0iVIkqVVs9ndN2e-Oo08TNef43l9O8&e=>
>
> in the introduction to say that "using MPLS to replace the function of NSH
> is described elsewhere [x]".
>
>
>
> I think the following:
>
> >>>
>
> the SFF Label will rise to the top of the label stack before
>
> the packet is forwarded to another node and before the packet
>
> is dispatched to a higher layer.
>
> >>>
>
> would be better worded as:
>
>
>
> "as a part of normal processing, the SFF Label will become
>
> the top label in the stack before the packet is forwarded
>
> to another node and before the packet is dispatched to a higher layer."
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Anoop
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_mpls&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=GF5N7QRjSUOtBmx2p0R4gvpBoU5Wyz5nwfbCtE_IUgI&s=SjAIyvNitzG1Hl4Yhw8do0D7ABHmIC0VBmEBSNKSINU&e=>
>
>