Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header
"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Thu, 27 April 2017 20:25 UTC
Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.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 41EE21293F9 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 dCZnmPouc4ao for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:24:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x235.google.com (mail-io0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 324EB1294F9 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x235.google.com with SMTP id k87so34816431ioi.0 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+n295CmD8kR63PWcDzyLNOYYB6KVp75EJyCB9wy/NZw=; b=PMnAQCGldFqC7LZ8Mdp/JJ16mvWEQawGCfQe6L0aJuELwB0fMhrKju+t+Msq/QK+2s GmpxUB7uRfTg6ftTPsfca80i9XbfJsy0U6BNGKMJXUMec+6yrZs6k6qT1KH63klz3TgK VzqQTTcfD2vdCIUybS+OPTCyUT/4VgOj4PqyNwlAQz0UeThaHmcZr0lED++nsW9sWpra 1Vk4OmbZIR2B2FqHkU+hMWNIDsb4JyhLiKk5OZFUs2/+s8FZZ70V9aQ/RbNBxTbskU36 ruYOcTI60Rra9WQzZPbWIHEtel1mHlrz/m6KW0mUMdV9vvnYuu6v0R0NB6qXpXuA4POs sZnA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+n295CmD8kR63PWcDzyLNOYYB6KVp75EJyCB9wy/NZw=; b=eTv+02nEp3CGERn0lkMBAAL3Z/cVitd6Iyw+iBHYGBp1GW8bAfWvjTepF8bvoBFp4i UWgk33Z6m0D47TQGlghGfHHBJxqVctpdcvHpWIlTTZZh/3Okkroi7XsmbUcz6G8zWXwF y2JZILIIEJS1Rv9IHh93lzpkC6fkAxnhN2SwvOLZQWqdhK5zIzJRHQqo3TzsMvuWu9o8 zDNrDyzpwl/ZXUPScvgBb2AwutK8+xq5YTorgfzQ4jRUhxHv3HpIdmB8zsxe1GWW4niY DI+zwGTPTLf4kqrOwIW+rfd3t+R++8n/JZ0I/DasrXM1YFFGXhnFh/VX5fjpZE9VY7hf SlUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/5qD0eE3VNufak5OmVcBxy/JXjTVuptjwDLs2eW8fpXs2vp31bU BrIsvDah/0d537wZIF8iJV/RFtx0Aw==
X-Received: by 10.157.55.131 with SMTP id x3mr2038332otb.60.1493324446380; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.231.132 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BF1BE6D99B52F84AB9B48B7CF6F17DA3DD5F8E@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
References: <BF1BE6D99B52F84AB9B48B7CF6F17DA3DD5F8E@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 16:20:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA=duU3vKSmH=+nfECeczpUp3+UXSe=F4OHSP4uPg+j7ZQzdTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: James N Guichard <james.n.guichard@huawei.com>
Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c000de2293a52054e2bb1ff"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/857rpOA-FoS5CRr5DdRT-7PNHsQ>
Subject: Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:25:02 -0000
Jim, The replacement text says: There are eight reserved bits in the NSH Base Header. New bits are assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226]. There are now actually five reserved bits. Cheers, Andy On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:54 PM, James N Guichard < james.n.guichard@huawei.com> wrote: > Dear WG: > > > > Having reviewed all of the email discussion on the mailing list it appears > to the chairs that we have consensus to add a TTL field to the NSH base > header. We would like to propose the following changes: > > > > Section 3.2: > > Update figure 2 as follows: > > > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > |Ver|O|R| TTL | Length |R|R|R|R|MD Type| Next Protocol | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > > Add the following text after figure 2: > > > > TTL: Service plane time-to-live. An SFF MUST decrement the TTL by a value > of 1 for all NSH packets it receives. Decrementing by a value of 1 from 0 > shall result in a TTL value of 63. The default for originating an NSH > packet is a TTL value of 63. The decrement SHALL occur before testing for > 0. After decrement, if the TTL is 0, the NSH packet MUST NOT be forwarded. > > > > Section 3.4: > > Update figure 4 to reflect the new base header format as per section 3.2 > base header. > > > > Section 3.5: > > Update figure 5 to reflect the new base header format as per section 3.2 > base header. > > > > Section 12.2.1: > > Current text is as follows: > > > > There are ten bits at the beginning of the NSH Base Header. New bits > > are assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226]. > > > > Bits 0-1 - Version > > Bit 2 - OAM (O bit) > > Bit 3 - Critical TLV (C bit) > > Bits 4-9 - Reserved > > > > Replace entire text as follows: > > > > There are eight reserved bits in the NSH Base Header. New bits > > are assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226]. > > > > Bits 0-1 - Version > > Bit 2 - OAM (O bit) > > Bit 3 - Reserved > > Bits 16-19 - Reserved > > > > Section 12.2.3: > > Current text has the MD-type as 8-bit values. > > > > Update text for this section and table 1 to reflect 4-bit values *not* > 8-bit values. > > > > *Please review carefully and indicate support for these changes (or any > changes to the suggested text).* > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jim & Joel > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sfc mailing list > sfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc > >
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Jim Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joe Clarke
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header jmh.direct
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Kyle Larose
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Greg Mirsky
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Eric C Rosen
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joel Halpern Direct
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joe Clarke
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Greg Mirsky
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Greg Mirsky
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair