Re: [mpls] [sfc] WG last call for draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-04.txt

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Wed, 13 April 2016 02:27 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@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 7315C12D7A6; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.217
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, 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 jlql1dQXpHDT; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6400712D787; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CLY75157; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:27:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.199) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:27:03 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:26:56 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG last call for draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRivfgoOh5TUt/KkmiZB4K1T/tUZ+HM4ag//98hgCAAIcBwP//f7YAgACID4A=
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:26:56 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D539638@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <m3egarz7kh.wl-narten@us.ibm.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D53955F@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <570DA48A.9010507@joelhalpern.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D539582@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <570DAA2C.10800@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <570DAA2C.10800@joelhalpern.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.99.55]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.570DAE78.00FC, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 7f390b4846863f306fe54fcbe9ebbbe3
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/cgts6FrdNypuBmWY7LhRieTKOSI>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [sfc] WG last call for draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-04.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 13 Apr 2016 02:27:09 -0000

Hi Joel,

Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4928#page-4. Although it's a BCP RFC, it'd better to obey it, IMO. No?

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 10:09 AM
> To: Xuxiaohu
> Subject: Re: [sfc] WG last call for draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-04.txt
> 
> Is there a standards track RFC that requires this?
> 
> I know it is a good practice.  It may even be a good idea for us as a design point,
> as I do want MPLS to be a usable transport for NSH.
> 
> But as far as I can tell, there is no standards track RFC that requires this.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 4/12/16 9:53 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> > Joel,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 9:45 AM
> >> To: Xuxiaohu; Thomas Narten; sfc@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [sfc] WG last call for draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-04.txt
> >>
> >> Xu,
> >>        I do not believe that there is an MPLS specification that
> >> requires that all content other than IP must have a first nibble of 0 or 1.
> >
> > When encapsulating NSH over MPLS directly, the first nibble of the NSH must
> not be 4 or 6.
> >
> >> There are specifications where it is discussed as desirable.
> >>
> >> It is in fact pretty trivial for us to change the format so that the
> >> first three bits are 0, but it burns several valuable flag bits.  It
> >> is an SFC working group decision,
> >
> > That's the reason why I raised the first nibble question.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Xiaohu
> >
> >> not, as far as I can tell, a violation of the MPLS specification.
> >>
> >> Yours,
> >> Joel
> >>
> >> On 4/12/16 9:41 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> >>> Hi Thomas,
> >>>
> >>> It said in the NSH draft:
> >>>
> >>>     "6.  Transport Agnostic: NSH is transport independent and is carried
> >>>          in an overlay, over existing underlays.  If an existing overlay
> >>>          topology provides the required service path connectivity, that
> >>>          existing overlay may be used."
> >>>
> >>> That means the NSH should be able to be transported over MPLS.
> >>> However,
> >> according to the current NSH format definition, it's not safe to
> >> carry the NSH over MPLS due to the first nibble issue. Therefore, I
> >> believe this issue needs to be addressed before publication.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Xiaohu
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Narten
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 10:48 AM
> >>>> To: sfc@ietf.org
> >>>> Subject: [sfc] WG last call for draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-04.txt
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear WG:
> >>>>
> >>>> This note begins a WG last call on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-04.txt
> >>>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh/).
> >>>>
> >>>> The editors of the NSH document have indicated that they have
> >>>> addressed all known comments and that there are no open issues with
> >>>> the current version of the document.
> >>>>
> >>>> Substantive comments to the list please, editorial comments can go
> >>>> directly to the document editors.
> >>>>
> >>>> We'll also get a brief update from the editors at next week's
> >>>> meeting. If there are any remaining issues with the document,
> >>>> raising them before the meeting would be especially helpful.
> >>>>
> >>>> For the chairs,
> >>>> Thomas
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> sfc mailing list
> >>>> sfc@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> sfc mailing list
> >>> sfc@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
> >>>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sfc mailing list
> > sfc@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
> >