Re: [sfc] [spring] [mpls] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

 *> [JD  They both draw upon the same heritage.*

I respectfully disagree John with that. One should not equate control plane
solution with data plane embedded solution. Those are completely different
spaces and different heritages.

I would further claim that we do have much more heritage in control plane
path steering rather then in data plane embedding of the same.

Cheers,
R.



On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:30 PM, John E Drake <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Robert,
>
>
>
> Comments inline
>
>
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Raszuk
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2018 12:00 PM
> *To:* John E Drake <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* EXT - [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; mpls <
> [e-mail]>; SPRING WG List <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; James N
> Guichard <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Francois
> Clad (fclad) <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] [mpls] [sfc] The MPLS WG has placed
> draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> Daniel,
>
>
>
> It has a multiplicity of issues, primarily wrt scalability and ease of
> configuration.
>
>
>
>
>
> ​Am I reading your comment correctly that draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining-04
> is unscalable and hard to configure and draft ​draft-farrel-mpls-sfc is
> superior ?
>
>
>
>
>
> *[JD]  The authors of that draft provided much input and guidance to the
> authors of ​draft-farrel-mpls-sfc. *
>
>
>
>
>
> Please observe that your own Juniper products are based already for a long
> time on the former and as you admited no one has any product based on the
> latter.
>
>
>
>
>
> *[JD]  I am not sure of your point.*
>
>
>
>
>
> Doesn't this makes it a bit of an odd argument ? Also please do notice
> that  draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining-04 vastly reuses 20 years of
> experience of L3VPNs service so your claim may be IMHO a little weak :)
>
>
>
>
>
> *[JD  They both draw upon the same heritage. *
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>  Yours Irrespectively,
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* spring [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Bernier,
> Daniel
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2018 10:54 AM
> *To:* John E Drake <[e-mail]>; Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* mpls <[e-mail]>; SPRING WG List <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> James N Guichard <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> Francois Clad (fclad) <[e-mail]>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] [mpls] [sfc] The MPLS WG has placed
> draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> Don't we already have draft-fm-bess-service-chaining-01
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dfm-2Dbess-2Dservice-2Dchaining-2D01&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=F3v0beOmsieoZ48B9JYfPjhGusHbW5F5SF9W20KcURU&s=UHNxeZF9m0BVCmAjG-ODELBOjV1v2yu25uDOeZSRw6g&e=>
> to perform service chains with existing MPLS implementations ?
>
>
>
> Thanks,​
>
>
>
>