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

Hi Carlos,

Please note that I do not mean to use different SFC encapsulations simultaneously.

>From what I understood from IETF'91 meeting discussions, the Generic SFC encapsulation technique has not yet been selected by the SFC WG.

I think that this means that the SFC architecture draft cannot be in favor for one specific 
SFC encapsulation technique and at the same time excluding other techniques.

My question is: 

Can the following two SFC encapsulation techniques be supported by the functions described in the SFC architecture draft?:

o) Single Marking Code Point, like format, see section 5.1 on boucadair draft, see below.

o) Explicit Route List, like format, see section 5.3 on boucadair draft, see below.

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-boucadair-sfc-design-analysis-03.txt

Best regards,
Georgios

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpignata@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 3:02 PM
> To: Georgios Karagiannis
> Cc: sfc@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [sfc] is current SFC architecture supporting different types of
> SFC header formats?
> 
> Hi, Georgios,
> 
> Do you mean different SFC Encapsulations simultaneously? The SFC charter
> says:
> 
> <snip>
> 3. Generic SFC Encapsulation: This document will describe a single
>    service-level data plane encapsulation format that:
> 
> </snip>
> 
> Because interoperability is the goal.
> 
> Looking at that section, the terminology does not seem to align to the arch
> and problem-statement documents. Also, that section seems to describe a
> pseudo-format, not a format. The architecture describes the functions in
> Section 4.1 and other places.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Carlos.
> 
> On 12/4/14, 8:55 AM, "Georgios Karagiannis"
> <georgios.karagiannis@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> >Hi Carlos,
> >
> >Thanks for your answer!
> >
> >Does this mean that the SFC architecture is allowing the use of
> >different Service Function Chaining Header (SFC encapsulation) formats?
> >
> >I am referring to the different SFC encapsulation formats that are
> >discussed in section 5 of the following ID:
> >http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-boucadair-sfc-design-analysis-03.txt
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Georgios
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpignata@cisco.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 2:46 PM
> >> To: Georgios Karagiannis
> >> Cc: sfc@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [sfc] is current SFC architecture supporting different
> >>types of  SFC header formats?
> >>
> >> 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
> >