Re: [sfc] WG Last call - Hierarchical SFC

<christian.jacquenet@orange.com> Wed, 15 March 2017 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <christian.jacquenet@orange.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 223691315A2 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 07:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ruibsBkNoy1A for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 07:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta239.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4574E1315A0 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 07:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar01.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by opfedar22.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id C43E9604CB; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:31:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.24]) by opfedar01.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id A65AE160182; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:31:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM7D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::9044:c5ee:4dd2:4f16%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:31:54 +0100
From: christian.jacquenet@orange.com
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG Last call - Hierarchical SFC
Thread-Index: AQHSnPEUz8weBXRZNUKjN8IF618Z/6GV9A1Q
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:31:53 +0000
Message-ID: <24607_1489588314_58C9505A_24607_16395_4_88132E969123D14D9BD844E1CD516EDE141D80EA@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <b565a81a-ced0-e4dd-5c0f-951814aa0246@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <b565a81a-ced0-e4dd-5c0f-951814aa0246@joelhalpern.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/MyOA8D_7acqC7Quq8sp2AG90aRs>
Subject: Re: [sfc] WG Last call - Hierarchical 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: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:31:58 -0000

Hello WG,

I think the hSFC draft is in good shape and should be moved forward. 

I've also read Adrian's (introductory) comments on the draft and it seems to me that the hSFC approach isn't only meant to address potential issues raised by the operation of "long" chains, whatever makes a chain long. 

Organizational matters can be instrumental too, so that hSFC can help service providers in better mastering resource usage in various regions of a SFC domain, e.g., according to a typical access/backhaul/core taxonomy possibly distorted by the market coverage - residential/enterprise/wholesale/mobile, let alone the scope of the connectivity service associated to a given SFC: for example, IoT services that are deployed at the scale of a city or a region and which may involve specific interconnect design schemes may become iconic beneficiaries of hSFC, but that's another use case argument.

There may be other approaches that address such use cases/organizational considerations, but I think hSFC can facilitate the corresponding SFC design and operation.

Cheers,

Christian. 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Joel M. Halpern
Envoyé : mardi 14 mars 2017 19:30
À : sfc@ietf.org
Objet : [sfc] WG Last call - Hierarchical SFC

This is a last call for:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-02

Please respond to the list as to whether you see problems with this, you think it is done, or any other input for the WG.

Due to the run up to the IETF, we will let this run until April 7.

Yours,
Joel & Jim

_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
sfc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.