IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sfc] Use of Alternate Marking Method in SFC

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 22 June 2017 21:55 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@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 B7423129484 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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] 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 9B-Mv-53ZpwN for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (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 5C0FB129470 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id c189so16503274oia.2 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:55:55 -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=BTqDXrx7go4y2kG80+1dgDBeKN0Yo3dPsii4TB5OXlE=; b=XAH1G3vKsg+wXCIXiKs/O1GifvVNPTKN8IZ+A27+Ofu5BFWpsBqxDClG2rsRQWFYSk PxHjBgKdtrusOTeD9VULMAvwySWk1DevSZx1NNbAgmjhqHLevIMR0AXq1EuMq3z37h2N Kr1P9hZuDemouISAFN2X/8TnQsgFwZOTMNbGI4ZdDoHwwstD907OI7/gGy2iBNxY+Xiq gKItNj5XkBxgAW/O0ZJsd9aR/bRVGQGPJEVfTLVWQiwUl9qzsxVOgOys6EQmOkdfDH70 /QHL6uP6TqoJ4kLaRjKRf39BJDgP+NjF28xj2OcLM8Pd5LfwpdfcQeGYvJRXgzZg6cOO 1N3g==
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=BTqDXrx7go4y2kG80+1dgDBeKN0Yo3dPsii4TB5OXlE=; b=Ifx2DXlGNk8whJZ3gBiixhVEiQxIR6etvchbPQ06tqAGb9WGkNBe4RutkgPQQ6YEYe NNHjK+s+cxaRz/ISpPvoPd/85n9yhEWKOKRAdBEDL+uzvGzpJ9cHa5jRl7NMuOzkl12D IUdgAlCXR6eiSjYDd9Ico1ROLoRLgohW77aQavxjiOFvdGMeE+V6ylpKte0tFgXVe/GR KhfFde11PxsXoHGfeYNYAfXM1jsNcNpjU0wpskdkQhmlpPUG4ECKlbLiYalLjDd2VOhG DJvzfirrpHkW82uU3EIMwZ1ciiWpEoOd5sQTj5elWxec1Z0j/aUYNZdZTeoYgv/FM6EF aNiA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwxQqTrDXMh0C5XyeTrwR6dXqsaRMzJ6wJldNWtojpKcgf1RXiV SLR7/FAS8wjiE9DAui+hKZOrpx1elQ==
X-Received: by 10.202.206.23 with SMTP id e23mr2489528oig.168.1498168554718; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.52.171 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABUE3XkPYckBCbafFESpoAGhuwLGuZWVtaqy43Oqq_WGOCORPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+RyBmVMN34DC49E01eCcLkSRjvCe4e43s6-rb7fZg4-AELJQg@mail.gmail.com> <CABUE3XkPYckBCbafFESpoAGhuwLGuZWVtaqy43Oqq_WGOCORPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:55:54 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmWZ8Y7N76_5ZyoBC8gy76eDhGxeGx5iq6SjkeoCBw-X5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
Cc: sfc@ietf.org, "Fioccola Giuseppe (giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it)" <giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ac724848bf80552938c74"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/HlJ5Kej-KHbuV8E-QsaVMuC6rek>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Use of Alternate Marking Method in SFC
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, 22 Jun 2017 21:55:58 -0000

Hi Tal,
thank you for for the review and great, on-target comments.
Please find my answers in-line tagged GIM>>.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:01 AM, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Greg, Giuseppe,
>
> I believe this work is valuable to the working group.
>
> - My main comment is that it is not currently clear which bits in the base
> header should be used as the marking bits. Section 3 should be clarified in
> this context.
>
GIM>> You are absolutely correct. We've started the draft around time of
the WG interim meeting and discussions about proposed changes to NSH Base.
As all these questions been resolved, I agree, it is time to pick location
for Marking field in the NSH Base.

- The draft currently proposes either to use two marking bits, or a single
> marking bit. For single marking the draft also presents two options. That
> is a total of three options. I assume these options are presented for
> clarity, but it would be great if in a later version of the memo this could
> be narrowed down from 3 options to a single option. As always - the less
> options the better.
>
GIM>> Very much agree with your practical suggestion. Will be glad to work
together on that.


> - Section 5: please clarify whether the request is to allocate a value of
> the OAM field, or the request is to allocate bits from the reserved bit
> pool in the NSH base header.
>
GIM>> It is the former, allocation of values of the Marking field (I
believe we should other than OAM field name as there's already O(AM) flag
in the Base header). Of course, current text assumes allocation of two
bits-long field.

>
> Cheers,
> Tal.
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> would like to bring your attention to the draft  Performance Measurement
>> (PM) with Alternate Marking Method in Service
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-sfc-pmamm-00>Function Chaining
>> (SFC) Domain <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-sfc-pmamm-00> we've
>> submitted earlier. Alternate Marking method allows performance measurement
>> performed close to passive measurement methods.
>> Greatly appreciate your questions, comments, and suggestions.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sfc mailing list
>> sfc@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>>
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email