IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sfc] Questions about draft-quinn-sfc-arch-05

"Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com> Wed, 18 June 2014 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <repenno@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 B2F491A025F for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 07:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.152 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 a1SIcSTCW5wy for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 07:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E2951A0266 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 07:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2355; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1403100046; x=1404309646; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=W5Xt58Qre/RUHUjMorBEJ6X3ci9t44w8t3TzGm4GmgE=; b=k9n4OO7Aucx8f+8H0zfBGNqScIyo6hV5lERGbCILIyTMWAH/GpkDu0aO kTD1sLbr/nQnc8pQrN4OTCKeb4hH2oU1W3u04JvA3oo8kr+YxEkgHDMYV o/hQushh6z8jts0rmLAR/dTa0Vj7L2FtpLSsDe2rpQYSWV1z+jMrCFK1Y U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah8IADiboVOtJV2R/2dsb2JhbABagw1SWqoTAQEBAQEBBQGRaYc/AYEJFnWEAwEBAQQBAQE3NBsCAQgRBAEBCxQQJwsdCAEBBAESCIg6DcxZF4ViiGI4gy2BFgEDnAaSFYNCgjA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,501,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="330893381"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2014 14:00:45 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s5IE0jjv011277 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:45 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.231]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:00:45 -0500
From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com>
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Questions about draft-quinn-sfc-arch-05
Thread-Index: Ac+K3S127YmDPWQNScaOnWZ/UqobUwAIEFG0
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:44 +0000
Message-ID: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040BE3F74E@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08283162@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08283162@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.65.87]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/PQN2aEGllsyMn0oDZ1an-4dzyKU
Subject: Re: [sfc] Questions about draft-quinn-sfc-arch-05
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: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:00:51 -0000

When you create a Service Path you define the actual service functions (SFs + locator) that will provide service. When you create a service function chain you only define the type of the service function (dpi, firewall, nat).

thanks,

Reinaldo
________________________________________
From: sfc [sfc-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Xuxiaohu [xuxiaohu@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:07 AM
To: sfc@ietf.org
Subject: [sfc] Questions about draft-quinn-sfc-arch-05

Hi all,

I have two questions about draft-quinn-sfc-arch-05:

1. According to the following figure quoted from the above draft, it seems each SFF Table entry (I,e., SFP) only contains an ordered list of SF IDs. If so, for a given SFID in the list, how does the SFF know on which particular service node that SF should be performed (assume there are multiple service nodes which can provide the SF of that SF ID)?


                +------+----------------------------------+
                | SFP  |   Ordered Service Functions      |
                |------+----------------------------------+
                | ID   | order1 | order2 | order3 | ...   |
                +------+--------+--------+--------+-------+
                | SFP1 | SFID1  | SFID5  | SFID20 |       |
                +------+--------+--------+--------+-------+
                | SFP4 | SFID100| SFID3  | SFID4  | SFID9 |
                +------+--------+--------+--------+-------+
                | ...  |        |        |        |       |
                +------+--------+--------+--------+-------+

                            Figure 3: SFF Table

2. Does the Transport Derived SFF concept mean the SFP could also be represented by some information contained in the transport layer, instead of the service path id contained in the SFC encapsulation header? For instance, an ordered list of service node locators and service function instance identities (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-spring-sfc-use-case-01)?

Best regards,
Xiaohu

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email