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

Fine

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: Anoop Ghanwani [mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 3:40 PM
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] comments on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-01

John,

How about:
"using MPLS as a replacement for NSH, covering use cases that do not need per-packet metadata, is described elsewhere [x]."

Thanks,
Anoop

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:24 PM John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net<mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>> wrote:
Hi,

The point was that “(with some loss of functionality)” is a meaningless phrase.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: Anoop Ghanwani [mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu<mailto:anoop@alumni.duke.edu>]
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 3:05 PM
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net<mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] comments on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-01

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<mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>> wrote:
Hi,

Comment inline

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Anoop Ghanwani
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 2:24 PM
To: mpls@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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=>