IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sfc] clarification on Service Path ID for draft-penno-sfc-packet

"Paul Quinn (paulq)" <paulq@cisco.com> Mon, 17 July 2017 12:39 UTC

Return-Path: <paulq@cisco.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 B42FD131898 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 05:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 OpRcwF2z3ZPn for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 05:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E76ED131839 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 05:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2199; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1500295192; x=1501504792; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=/MRfDLGLAXmh34MPoZt13FP2E0LYMaWE1suNMrOp8DI=; b=Jcz1qElAdDoSDy+9BdqIANYMb2fA0vgVGmoXv70ujb/884tdklLaI3IX 3ZKTJEvrnQbYe7+TPpSYi+2djES03X0LnfM33ezjufMY8xyRQzI6QpDz9 QHDYf9szGplM8JyoKBUKYSaTc74bX61CK/7WBFFi0g7Bg7iP+G3yRKMF9 w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AEAQDUrmxZ/49dJa1cGgEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBgm9rgXgHjgSRPZB6hSyCEYVHAoN4PxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUZBnkQAgEIBAEJMQcyFBECBA4FiUtksU2LFAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2DKINNggwLgm6ILYIxBZ80ApQUki+VVgEfOIEKdRVbAYcDdod/gQ0BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,374,1496102400"; d="scan'208,217";a="451740506"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Jul 2017 12:39:52 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (xch-rcd-006.cisco.com [173.37.102.16]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v6HCdqLS030425 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:39:52 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) by XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (173.37.102.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 07:39:51 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-008.cisco.com ([173.37.102.18]) by XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com ([173.37.102.18]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 07:39:51 -0500
From: "Paul Quinn (paulq)" <paulq@cisco.com>
To: Sumandra Majee <S.Majee@F5.com>
CC: Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>, James N Guichard <james.n.guichard@huawei.com>, "Kent Leung (kleung)" <kleung@cisco.com>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [sfc] clarification on Service Path ID for draft-penno-sfc-packet
Thread-Index: AQHS/N/NijlxPpxFQhyonVi4uiBr2aJYTasA
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:39:51 +0000
Message-ID: <67A50C77-5813-41DB-818C-EFDC00EC397F@cisco.com>
References: <47E28E62-CE9E-47D4-989C-CFA81E6092B7@f5.com>
In-Reply-To: <47E28E62-CE9E-47D4-989C-CFA81E6092B7@f5.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.19.17.231]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_67A50C77581341DB818CEFDC00EC397Fciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/9OT0sl8qJKhjAfGlzDSWBJTL6fU>
Subject: Re: [sfc] clarification on Service Path ID for draft-penno-sfc-packet
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: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:39:56 -0000

On Jul 14, 2017, at 4:28 PM, Sumandra Majee <S.Majee@F5.com<mailto:S.Majee@F5.com>> wrote:

Fundamentally it is all about how divide up the SPI+SI space.
However, we like the service path SPI to be unique per direction.

I do as well.  It's simple and allows an operator to easily troubleshoot a path.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email