IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Thu, 04 December 2014 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@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 04D051AD3A6 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 06:01:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 h24zAfqbrMw2 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 06:01:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E38751AD392 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 06:01:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2453; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1417701700; x=1418911300; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=uVBM6PM9FMrQamzHgZvY1BT/tiDDsnxOHCVC2IQdgDc=; b=muwA7za+6FeYAyMygpTdPuEdvq9BEFF+daU+rVEC3FR0/w3jilMUqkvh GHxsBhXEPF/mwvifAgz3cI0TFMYTY4dqF9Pafd5WHDb6WvddIB2aKxRkZ K2o/nNS4jQQSrl/FnfJcbzNulPJ9qSEnrw3HZf0jInFiLixLT66P9z8Ja M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjEFAHNogFStJV2c/2dsb2JhbABagmQiUlgExCqCHAqGFgKBGxYBAQEBAX2EAgEBAQQBAQE3NAsMBAIBCBEBAwEBAR4JBycLFAMGCAEBBA4FCYg1AQzWMAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReLLoU4BwaEPAWOGoF2ikqBIoMti1+DaYI1gURvAYFEgQABAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,515,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="102641909"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2014 14:01:39 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sB4E1dBl007136 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:01:39 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([fe80::8c1c:7b85:56de:ffd1]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:01:38 -0600
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Georgios Karagiannis <georgios.karagiannis@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [sfc] is current SFC architecture supporting different types of SFC header formats?
Thread-Index: AdAPq35dh1W/iINPRT2JdHnL8IYwVwAT290AAAxhE+D//02BAA==
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 14:01:38 +0000
Message-ID: <D0A5D235.3456%cpignata@cisco.com>
References: <C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DCB28ACF@LHREML516-MBX.china.huawei.com> <4D83F738-BF44-4A85-8849-D300A2F207F7@cisco.com> <C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DCB28B39@LHREML516-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DCB28B39@LHREML516-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.6.141106
x-originating-ip: [64.102.156.203]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <57764D28228A5749880CBC519E19F3B6@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/W3za6wEJR1nivh-BZFGx0tP3b7k
Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sfc] is current SFC architecture supporting different types of SFC header formats?
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: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 14:01:42 -0000

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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email