IETF Logo Mail Archive

[sfc] Review comments for draft-agv-sfc-packet-loss-measurement-01

Phaneendra manda <phaneendra.manda@huawei.com> Wed, 23 November 2016 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <phaneendra.manda@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73BAB129D4A for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 04:49:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.717
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.717 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, 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 AKefSkja54Eb for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 04:49:23 -0800 (PST)
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 30CDE129D6E for <sfc@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 04:49:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DBG08332; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 12:49:18 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.45) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.182) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 12:47:53 +0000
Received: from BLREML501-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.20.5.198]) by BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 18:17:41 +0530
From: Phaneendra manda <phaneendra.manda@huawei.com>
To: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [sfc] Review comments for draft-agv-sfc-packet-loss-measurement-01
Thread-Index: AdJFh8dU9j7De4XRQn2cOmj7omWbvA==
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 12:47:41 +0000
Message-ID: <6A6AEA8F97B29F4585E1A9F4BE8838747E3A9B30@blreml501-mbx>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.148.192]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6A6AEA8F97B29F4585E1A9F4BE8838747E3A9B30blreml501mbx_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090201.58359051.0099, 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: 6130d9d31534d5a076a79d77d143c09b
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/4NXWetz4VY2-rppuqwOswt0EzGM>
Cc: Aruna kumar padhi <aruna.padhi@huawei.com>
Subject: [sfc] Review comments for draft-agv-sfc-packet-loss-measurement-01
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining <sfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 12:49:26 -0000

Hi Authors,

Please find the below review comments for draft-agv-sfc-packet-loss-measurement-01


1.      In Section 1.3

   This document defines the implementation mechanism for the packet
   loss measurement as per performance measurement architecture [SFC-PM-
   arch]. This document defines a new NSH message format for carrying
   packet loss measurement related control information. It also defines
   operations to be carried out for packet loss measurement.
   communication mechanism between measurement controller, measurement
   collector and MA is out of scope of this document.

   Can be


   This document defines the implementation mechanism for the packet

   loss measurement as per performance measurement architecture [SFC-PM-

   arch]. This document defines a new NSH message format for carrying

   packet loss measurement related control information. It also defines

   operations to be carried out for packet loss measurement.

   Communication mechanism between measurement controller, measurement

   collector and MA is out of scope of this document.




2. In section 2.1

The length is only 5 bits in Performance Measurement Context Header TLV. In the TLV, it includes the list of MA Identifiers. So the max MA Identifiers that can be in the list is 31 (4 byte used for Measurement Window Index and Reserved). This list can include max of 31 MA Identifiers for both SFF and SF. Where there is no limit for SF's can be max of 31 in a Service Function Chain. I think the length field need to be revised.



3. In section 2.2

 Reserved: Reserved 16 bits for future purpose.   - Is repeated twice.



4. In section 2.3,

      The method of encoding the PMF id is done using the flow id defined in [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-agv-sfc-packet-loss-measurement-01#ref-I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh>]. - But I could not find any flow id defined in ietf-sfc-nsh draft.



5. In section 3.5

I think it should collect the stats at outgoing port only when packet loss measurement is initiated.



6. In section 3.7

I think this can include one more scenario, packet loss when a Service function is Down.



7. I think this draft considers only static Service Function Path. I suggest this draft can also include the below scenarios

- Dynamic SFP as mentioned in RFC 7665 section 5.2

- Bidirectional SFC

- Reclassification and branching as mentioned in RFC 7665 section 4.8




Thanks & Regards,
Phaneendra Manda.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email