Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header
Jim Guichard <jguichard1966@gmail.com> Thu, 27 April 2017 20:40 UTC
Return-Path: <jguichard1966@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 CD26A12948A for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 FwM8PTe42bxW for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x232.google.com (mail-ua0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::232]) (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 F28CC1292AE for <sfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x232.google.com with SMTP id f10so26711169uaa.2 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WGGDlQGy3lF2TcQ3uLlirWrnjW7GFOcObT2QlfNj+Pg=; b=TK9E3ksapeOXqbI4anLVng+7+eP5oMggfLz8rInuF6TAMnwkqv6SC7DFAXB2XIdHUi MeiXqcCJoACmUGQtDEE1sdtyDl60hc8xkgc+3ux34K5IetNphxDzKqI4dDaHrSH0wZoC DBbKKnl0R4UFwa5tVbf0t493UhIxPZy1v65F3gT0D6ZBhklXBlNhlp68zm6h/ecO5XJ4 HBV+fS3J584OsvAw1xbEWQD25KwyBi+dhuhrlt6tH7Yy4ZLemcQ/u/+WZDBQTwxehJf1 4hY+/uu2SMI6DD+xi1+Eh5reHgvrmCiNZ8WE5wqQmZ0PVb9axPb7+Aaq5v3jPO86mZg5 kSuA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WGGDlQGy3lF2TcQ3uLlirWrnjW7GFOcObT2QlfNj+Pg=; b=mzaOKmLjfWIMVI+bb+PByXHEpZljV1FEGRLTg8Z2qn8YLd1VI8swnUCJqT/3UiJ8wi 9SC6mcTPp6D0ah/C9kcapfenkmqTgYepezkVlob3vYhct2N4UkPnH5e6GessmKQIxDcH 1vszSlq5h2uGtHR/QctsTpJF/eGGgtBQo9h/PfSQp04O98gUhp+aFlfn6Oek9UGhADLv FXgaw/NQkwkp3P3q0/bJ+UkvsM0YdzQTEf6JOPVR5e95at7aATlbqaNYQwuqDe2qVCDa 4FakWoVrfXPn1K1aBnfoTgeuKjXnGfL7NMl+p1th8Aa3jZO4bmbxpgywzTlShHwGr9P+ 2BgA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6GFzlCzNz6h0rvZXpaxeKlirjGIQl448Gv80xOthShB9K74U3l QriKIf3mFuQqBxkv0YzVReLJekoRAQ==
X-Received: by 10.176.74.81 with SMTP id r17mr4409325uae.39.1493325454100; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BF1BE6D99B52F84AB9B48B7CF6F17DA3DD5F8E@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com> <CAA=duU3vKSmH=+nfECeczpUp3+UXSe=F4OHSP4uPg+j7ZQzdTg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU3vKSmH=+nfECeczpUp3+UXSe=F4OHSP4uPg+j7ZQzdTg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jim Guichard <jguichard1966@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:37:23 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJn5=KcxP8R7wBWuUohAnhHP9tKqsV+QfQHVAsOVXcpu10tdoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>, James N Guichard <james.n.guichard@huawei.com>
Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f8fd439cd94054e2bedcb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/Prcap4Ijoh8oGV3Ld8zkEycBUFI>
Subject: Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header
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, 27 Apr 2017 20:40:32 -0000
Yes but I also counted the other 3 bits that were reserved and are now allocated.. On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:25 PM Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote: > Jim, > > The replacement text says: > > There are eight reserved bits in the NSH Base Header. New bits > > are assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226]. > > There are now actually five reserved bits. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:54 PM, James N Guichard < > james.n.guichard@huawei.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear WG: >> >> >> >> >> >> Having reviewed all of the email discussion on the mailing list it >> appears to the chairs that we have consensus to add a TTL field to the NSH >> base header. We would like to propose the following changes: >> >> >> >> >> >> Section 3.2: >> >> >> Update figure 2 as follows: >> >> >> >> >> >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >> >> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> >> >> |Ver|O|R| TTL | Length |R|R|R|R|MD Type| Next Protocol | >> >> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> >> >> >> >> >> Add the following text after figure 2: >> >> >> >> >> >> TTL: Service plane time-to-live. An SFF MUST decrement the TTL by a value >> of 1 for all NSH packets it receives. Decrementing by a value of 1 from 0 >> shall result in a TTL value of 63. The default for originating an NSH >> packet is a TTL value >> >> of 63. The decrement SHALL occur before testing for 0. After decrement, >> if the TTL is 0, the NSH packet MUST NOT be forwarded. >> >> >> >> >> >> Section 3.4: >> >> >> Update figure 4 to reflect the new base header format as per section 3.2 >> base header. >> >> >> >> >> >> Section 3.5: >> >> >> Update figure 5 to reflect the new base header format as per section 3.2 >> base header. >> >> >> >> >> >> Section 12.2.1: >> >> >> Current text is as follows: >> >> >> >> >> >> There are ten bits at the beginning of the NSH Base Header. New bits >> >> >> are assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226]. >> >> >> >> >> >> Bits 0-1 - Version >> >> >> Bit 2 - OAM (O bit) >> >> >> Bit 3 - Critical TLV (C bit) >> >> >> Bits 4-9 - Reserved >> >> >> >> >> >> Replace entire text as follows: >> >> >> >> >> >> There are eight reserved bits in the NSH Base Header. New bits >> >> >> are assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226]. >> >> >> >> >> >> Bits 0-1 - Version >> >> >> Bit 2 - OAM (O bit) >> >> >> Bit 3 - Reserved >> >> >> Bits 16-19 - Reserved >> >> >> >> >> >> Section 12.2.3: >> >> >> Current text has the MD-type as 8-bit values. >> >> >> >> >> >> Update text for this section and table 1 to reflect 4-bit values *not* >> 8-bit values. >> >> >> >> >> >> *Please review carefully and indicate support for these changes (or any >> changes to the suggested text).* >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> >> >> Jim & Joel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> sfc mailing list >> >> >> sfc@ietf.org >> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > sfc mailing list > > sfc@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc > >
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Jim Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joe Clarke
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header jmh.direct
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Kyle Larose
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Greg Mirsky
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Eric C Rosen
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joel Halpern Direct
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joe Clarke
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Greg Mirsky
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Ron Parker
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header Greg Mirsky
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header James N Guichard
- Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header mohamed.boucadair