Re: [sfc] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-11.txt

[[e-mail]]

Hi Med,


thank you for the suggested text. I've updated the working version (it is attached and the diff too).


Please take a look at your convenience and share your thoughts on it.








Regards,


Greg Mirsky






Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division









E: [e-mail] 
www.zte.com.cn








Original Mail



Sender: [e-mail]
To: gregory mirsky10211915;
CC: [e-mail];[e-mail];
Date: 2021/05/31 23:36
Subject: Re: [sfc] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-11.txt




_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc

 

Hi Greg,


 


I suggest the following as the use of flow id is deployment-specific:


 


OLD:


   the sender may use NSH MD Type 2 Flow ID


   TLV [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv].  The value of the Flow ID field of the


   SFP Echo Request packet MUST be set to the same value as of the


   monitored flow.


 


NEW:

   If dedicated means (e.g., IPv6 Flow Label [RFC6437],    Flow ID [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv]) are used for distributing    load across Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) or Link 
   Aggregation Group (LAG) paths, these means MAY also be


   used for the SFC OAM traffic. Doing so is meant to control   


   whether the SFC Echo Request follows the same RSP as the


   monitored flow.


 


Please note that this is a “MAY” as the Echo Request can be used to achieve REQ#7 as well (i.e., discover any available path).


 


BTW, please change “SFP Echo Request” to “SFC Echo Request” in Section 5.7 (many occurrences).


 


Cheers,


Med


 




De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
 Envoyé : mardi 1 juin 2021 06:27
 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>
 Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
 Objet : Re:[sfc] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-11.txt




 

Hi Med,

my understanding of Section 4.5 in draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv is that like the IPv6 Flow Label or the MPLS Entropy label, Flow ID can be used to balance flows across a multipath data plane. I assume that not only SFs of the same type can be connected to a given SFF, but that a lookup for the next SFF may result in more than one destination. If that is the case, and the monitored flow in the service function chain uses particular Flow ID, active OAM must use the same value. 

I much appreciate your thoughts whether my understanding and assumptions hold the water.

 

Regards,


Greg Mirsky


 


Sr. Standardization Expert
 预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division


 






 E: [e-mail] 
 www.zte.com.cn







Original Mail



Sender: [e-mail]



To: gregory mirsky10211915;



CC: [e-mail];[e-mail];



Date: 2021/05/31 00:28



Subject: RE: Re:[sfc] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-11.txt




Hi Greg,


 


Citing ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency is OK for the missing part about recording crossed SFs. However, I don’t see why flow-id is needed as the marking is done at the NSH level.


 


Thank you.


 


Cheers,


Med


 




De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
 Envoyé : samedi 29 mai 2021 01:39
 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <[e-mail]>
 Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
 Objet : Re:[sfc] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-11.txt




 

Hi Med,

thank you the expedient response, Please find my follow-up notes in-lined below tagged GIM2>>.

 

Regards,


Greg Mirsky










[Med]  Apologies for the late comment but when thinking about this part:


   To trace a particular RSP, the sender may use NSH MD Type 2 Flow ID


   TLV [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv].  The value of the Flow ID field of the


   SFP Echo Request packet MUST be set to the same value as of the


   monitored flow.


I failed to see how flow-id can be help for tracing (list if SFs that were involve in an SFP). Having a list of IP addresses is not sufficient as we need the identity of the SFs that were involved. The registry in draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-18#section-10.5 would be useful for this. If you can clarify that part in the text, that would be great. Thank you. 





 GIM2>> I much appreciate your comments and questions. I agree with you, Flow-id alone would not reflect SFs. I've updated the text adding the reference to draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency. Mechanism described in that draft allows the collection of the SF Type information as specified


in the Service Function Type registry defined in draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane.


NEW TEXT:

  To trace a particular RSP, the sender may use NSH MD Type 2 Flow ID

   TLV [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv] in combination with the method described

   in [I-D.ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency].  The value of the Flow ID field

   of the SFP Echo Request packet MUST be set to the same value as of

   the monitored flow.


In Section 3.3 draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency:

  SF Type: Two octets long field.  It is defined in

   [I-D.ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane] and indicates the type of SF,

   e.g., Firewall, Deep Packet Inspection, WAN optimization controller,

   etc.












_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.  This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. 





 




_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.