IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Thu, 04 December 2014 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.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 438611AD37E for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:46:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 ft_dUyRWyDJw for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:46:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFF391A8979 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:46:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=990; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1417700772; x=1418910372; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=yMp8gsS8R4Db87tYfCAv+T+lh0qUrEBUiwJcpXPT/8A=; b=l3EnpO8URthDiLP23Ag9r1MTkDKjPJ/MQu5iKVHZIPn736dfdX4R1SVl T7zKujPNW3CNvr8Uk7WJ9rmE2jPN3/YvFQ2yktFXkclQDR+Mo3K2iqOyS Wre9Yo6MP2dFAPGVYpgmvQeLtWegqb7FD0kLmZIDFic2brFeSNxFsCuXc A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjAFALlkgFStJA2M/2dsb2JhbABagmQiUlgExCqCHAqGFgKBGxYBAQEBAX2EAgEBAQMBAQEBNzQLBQsCAQgSBh4QJwsXDgEBBA4FCYgsCQEM1iEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXiy6FBTMHgySBHgWOGoF2ikqBIoMtj0iCNYFEbwGBRIEAAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,515,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="102636391"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2014 13:46:12 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sB4DkCbA002872 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 4 Dec 2014 13:46:12 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([fe80::8c1c:7b85:56de:ffd1]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 07:46:11 -0600
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Georgios Karagiannis <georgios.karagiannis@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [sfc] is current SFC architecture supporting different types of SFC header formats?
Thread-Index: AdAPq35dh1W/iINPRT2JdHnL8IYwVwAT290A
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 13:46:11 +0000
Message-ID: <4D83F738-BF44-4A85-8849-D300A2F207F7@cisco.com>
References: <C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DCB28ACF@LHREML516-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DCB28ACF@LHREML516-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [64.102.156.203]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4EF045EA3BCC52458D96E941161E513B@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/COvZO7IfW66M02DJtlHw2uWEXTs
Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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 13:46:15 -0000

Hi, Georgios,

The SFC architecture document concerns itself with the functions and not the format.

Thanks,

Carlos.

> On Dec 4, 2014, at 5:17 AM, Georgios Karagiannis <georgios.karagiannis@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> sfc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email