Re: [mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-01
" 徐小虎(义先) " <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com> Thu, 24 May 2018 05:25 UTC
Return-Path: <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.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 B8A6512D943; Wed, 23 May 2018 22:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.019
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alibaba-inc.com
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 wQLQVBdDqS8m; Wed, 23 May 2018 22:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out0-131.mail.aliyun.com (out0-131.mail.aliyun.com [140.205.0.131]) (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 5FE9012895E; Wed, 23 May 2018 22:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alibaba-inc.com; s=default; t=1527139535; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=HoyxLRoVhiIzLuPd9lkCDCXNkeg38Hox+j+7W1kbse0=; b=MvuzQ6IJH8+vjEVagAVDYMcPQ3EZyamQPHsp+zMs52eaLEHV4GSgk20gUIWYojFx2oBMxEFIkeqY2Zd4yv0On4+vtNaz/7XU3GiXQSTc2pCmX7yEHnXd+lgjJ4OO2USKOTNmevoyUi1EcArZXfskWQhXwcoZw/kJUKFLFz0SQQQ=
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS; BC=-1|-1; BR=01201311R211e4; CH=green; FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1; HT=e01e01454; MF=xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com; NM=1; PH=DW; RN=4; SR=0; TI=W4_5266107_v5ForWebDing_0AC26432_1527139281526_o7001c46s;
Received: from WS-web (xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com[W4_5266107_v5ForWebDing_0AC26432_1527139281526_o7001c46s]) by e02c03270.eu6 at Thu, 24 May 2018 13:25:31 +0800
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 13:25:31 +0800
From: "徐小虎(义先)" <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
To: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mpls-sfc <draft-ietf-mpls-sfc@ietf.org>
Cc: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, sfc <sfc@ietf.org>
Reply-To: "徐小虎(义先)" <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
Message-ID: <f0c17607-c1d6-4d9c-a42c-581aafa43bfb.xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
X-Mailer: [Alimail-Mailagent][W4_5266107][v5ForWebDing][Safari]
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAA=duU1o2LRsrphdRXh3re2ZMkusyD8rQQKmUS5_E527uajsqQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU1o2LRsrphdRXh3re2ZMkusyD8rQQKmUS5_E527uajsqQ@mail.gmail.com>
x-aliyun-mail-creator: W4_5266107_v5ForWebDing_QvNTW96aWxsYS81LjAgKE1hY2ludG9zaDsgSW50ZWwgTWFjIE9TIFggMTBfMTJfNikgQXBwbGVXZWJLaXQvNjA0LjUuNiAoS0hUTUwsIGxpa2UgR2Vja28pIFZlcnNpb24vMTEuMC4zIFNhZmFyaS82MDQuNS42La
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=ALIBOUNDARY_111965_5061c940_5b064ccb_11d067"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/xpdXAecLsnpizAeBjYyq2d-Y2uc>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-01
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 24 May 2018 05:25:54 -0000
It's hard for me to understand the difference between the MPLS-SR-based SFC approach as referred to in section 4.5 and the "micro chains" discussed in section 4.4 as well. Best regards,Xiaohu ------------------------------------------------------------------From:Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com>Send Time:2018年5月24日(星期四) 03:52To:draft-ietf-mpls-sfc <draft-ietf-mpls-sfc@ietf.org>Cc:mpls <mpls@ietf.org>; sfc <sfc@ietf.org>Subject:[mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-01 Adrian et al, I just had a chance to review draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-01 in detail, and have a few comments. First of all, thanks for including the section 4.5 text. That said, I’m having a hard time distinguishing between using MPLS-SR for SFC and the “micro chains” discussed in section 4.4. I agree that the “micro chains" are a logical extreme of section 4.2, but that said, section 4.2 does include swapping as well as popping, while section 4.4 is pure popping. It would be greatly appreciated if you could add text that differentiates “micro chains” from MPLS-SR, otherwise it’s just a different name for the same functionality. If there is actually is no difference, then section 4.4 should be removed. I also have a comment in section 12. The text currently says "It should be noted that the MPLS encoding is slightly less functional than the direct use of the NSH.” In this case, “slightly” is a judgement for the reader to make, and I see a huge loss of functionality because there’s no support for per-packet metadata. Please remove the word “slightly” in this text. Without the word “slightly”, the text changes from an opinion to a fact. Thanks,Andy
- [mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-01 Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-01 徐小虎(义先)
- Re: [mpls] [sfc] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-… Zafar Ali (zali)