Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-04.txt

Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Mon, 07 January 2019 03:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mach.chen@huawei.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 9F7D7129A87; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 19:51:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Axcl6OKQNIIR; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 19:51:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DB201292F1; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 19:51:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 8D211768F0A09A918940; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 03:51:40 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.32) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 03:51:40 +0000
Received: from DGGEML530-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.165]) by DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::89ed:853e:30a9:2a79%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 11:51:34 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-sfc.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-sfc.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-04.txt
Thread-Index: AdSZOHGt85HegsS7TxCSGyYrh2LDDQLvo12AAE/hNKA=
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 03:51:34 +0000
Message-ID: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE2927F532A@dggeml530-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE2927E4EA8@dggeml530-mbs.china.huawei.com> <000901d4a53a$0e619770$2b24c650$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <000901d4a53a$0e619770$2b24c650$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.194.201]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/F87H2MLYH5-dt0OI10oTE4Sa9UQ>
Subject: Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-04.txt
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: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 03:51:45 -0000

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for your reply!

See some response inline...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2019 5:03 AM
> To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>;; rtg-ads@ietf.org
> Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-sfc.all@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-04.txt
> 
> Hi Mach,
> 
> Thanks for your careful review.
> 
> > Minor Issues:
> > *	Section 13 says:
> > "
> >   b.  When the packet arrives at SFFa it strips any labels associated
> >       with the tunnel that runs from the classifier to SFFa.  SFFa
> >       examines the top labels and matches the SPI/SI to identify that
> >       the packet should be forwarded to SFa.  The packet is forwarded
> >       to SFa unmodified.
> >
> >   c.  SFa performs its designated function and returns the packet to
> >       SFFa.
> >
> >   d.  SFFa modifies the SI in the lower label stack entry (to 254) and
> >       uses the SPI/SI to look up the forwarding instructions.  It sends
> >       the packet with two label stack entries:
> >"
> > From above text, it seems that an SFF will have different process for
> >a
> packet that
> > has the same SPI/SI.
> >  1) if a packet is received from a previous SFF, it will match the
> > SPI/SI
> and determine
> >  to where the packet will be sent.
> >  2) if a packet is received from an SF, it will directly modify the
> > inner
> label, and then
> > by matching the new SPI/SI to determine to where the packet will be sent.
> >
> > Is this the intention ? If so, how does an SFF determine whether a
> > packet
> is from an
> > SFF or from SF?
> 
> You have understood the processing correctly.
> In fact, the same situation exists with NSH processing: the SFF is expected to
> "know" whether the packet has arrived from the previous SFF or from the SF.
> 
> There are probably two answers:
> Firstly, it is entirely possible that the SFF and SF are co-resident. That is, they
> form part of the same implementation, possibly being separated by an API.
> In this case, of course, the question does not arise.
> Secondly, it is reasonable to expect that the SFs are attached to the SFF by
> dedicated tunnels or ports (indeed, SFs are port-attached in the legacy
> service function world) so that a packet arriving on a line interface (from
> another SFF) is easily distinguished from one that arrives from an SF. (You
> might think about port-attached L3VPNs to help clarity how this could work).

If so, it's better to add some text to clarify this. Given the current text, it implies that it could be determined just by matching the SPI/SI.

> 
> > In addition, how does an SFF apply the swap and/or pop operations here.
> E.g., when an SFF looks up the SPI,
> > it matches an item in a local table; what operation (swap or pop) will
> apply to the SPI label? According to " The
> > packet is forwarded to SFa unmodified." It seems implies that there is
> > no
> any operation will be applied. If so,
> > this will not align with the MPLS.
> 
> I think you should also look at this in the manner of a L3VPN. That is, the top
> label is popped to derive the context, the forwarding label is looked up
> within the context and swapped, and the context label is re-imposed as the
> packet is forwarded.
> 
> Of course, there are optimisations on how an SFF might implement this, but
> we don't need to describe those. What we know is that the VPN-like
> approach can be made to work with existing PEs.

As above, it's better to add some text to make it clearer. 

> 
> > If the above issues exist, the " context/SF" case has the similar issues.
> 
> Hope I have explained why this is not an issue.
> 
> Now, we could debate why we have not made these answers more clear in
> the text.
> The first thing is that we are not trying to make any changes to the
> architecture used for NSH, so we did not feel we should go into explanations
> about how the SF/SFF relationship works.
> Additionally, we did not feel that (beyond the short section 14) we should tell
> people how to implement. The purpose of the document is to describe wire
> formats.

IMHO, it may not be enough if just describing the wire formats, the operations/process on the "formats" are necessary to make it an implementable and interoperable protocol. 

Although Section 13 is listed as a worked example, I personally think that they are necessary procedures. I'd suggest to change it to more "formal" section, e.g., Procedures. 

Best regards,
Mach

> 
> Best,
> Adrian