IETF Logo Mail Archive

[sfc] is current SFC architecture supporting different types of SFC header formats?

Georgios Karagiannis <georgios.karagiannis@huawei.com> Thu, 04 December 2014 10:17 UTC

Return-Path: <georgios.karagiannis@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C20591A0149 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 02:17:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 Y6F1ygmvsqIc for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 02:17:35 -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 C95A11A0137 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 02:17:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BPO28945; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:17:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML516-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.78]) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.201.5.241]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 10:17:28 +0000
From: Georgios Karagiannis <georgios.karagiannis@huawei.com>
To: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: is current SFC architecture supporting different types of SFC header formats?
Thread-Index: AdAPq35dh1W/iINPRT2JdHnL8IYwVw==
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:17:28 +0000
Message-ID: <C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DCB28ACF@LHREML516-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.221.64.158]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/5OAtbdkv6aMOC-73mjgEgj4Xzek
Subject: [sfc] is current SFC architecture supporting different types of SFC header formats?
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:17:41 -0000

Hi all,

Please note that I was reviewing the SFC architecture draft, see below, and I have a question:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sfc-architecture-02.txt


Can you please let me know if the current version of the SFC architecture 
allows the use of different Service Function Chaining Header formats?

These formats and their analysis can be found in Section 5 of the following draft:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-boucadair-sfc-design-analysis-03.txt


If that is not the case, please elaborate why.

Best regards,
Georgios

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email