Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header
Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com> Mon, 01 May 2017 22:17 UTC
Return-Path: <jclarke@cisco.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 D31D612EB42 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 May 2017 15:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 r0qHsV8-qQcH for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 May 2017 15:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DCA412EB3E for <sfc@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 May 2017 15:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=17789; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493676898; x=1494886498; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1TpGfJQz2TuhSGm9etiyU0nDKpiOloDDJMinTqcWlPo=; b=LjBR+LZ0CwmnL381VeSbK0mcPG3F2Wfx6N64hBgZYUvBcrvifKxpy26H kD/RrTNiW9wCUSyTr3TCV2u8vWRFSs0hyCUA3+NJ8BH6Ags4ll4DCgYGr EABCrUcoTZlXbs4MQLsxXelrqhs1PHa/li1JOGa7rN1DQw/gE/MNyin/V w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BRAgANswdZ/40NJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgyorYoEMg2iKGJFOiCKNS4IPIQuCHQGDWgKEOxUqGAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRUBAQEBAwEBIQ8BOwsQCQIRBAEBAQICIwMCAiEGHwkIBgEMBgIBAYoDAxUOkDSdYYImhywNg1sBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYELhVSBXiuCcIJUgV8BDAYBgyKCXwEEnRg7ik2DdoROggKFN4NCI4UDgT2IdoIniRAfOH8LTiEVRIcMJDUBhnwOF4IXAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,401,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="420465536"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 01 May 2017 22:14:56 +0000
Received: from [10.82.218.153] (rtp-vpn3-662.cisco.com [10.82.218.153]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v41MEtwu004048; Mon, 1 May 2017 22:14:55 GMT
To: James N Guichard <james.n.guichard@huawei.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>
Cc: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Ron Parker <Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
References: <BF1BE6D99B52F84AB9B48B7CF6F17DA3DD5F8E@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com> <CDF2F015F4429F458815ED2A6C2B6B0B8399F104@MBX021-W3-CA-2.exch021.domain.local> <BF1BE6D99B52F84AB9B48B7CF6F17DA3DD69C4@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com> <CDF2F015F4429F458815ED2A6C2B6B0B8399F193@MBX021-W3-CA-2.exch021.domain.local> <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E98705BFE87@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <CDF2F015F4429F458815ED2A6C2B6B0B839A023E@MBX021-W3-CA-2.exch021.domain.local> <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E98705BFFB9@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <CDF2F015F4429F458815ED2A6C2B6B0B839A0285@MBX021-W3-CA-2.exch021.domain.local> <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E98705C00B4@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <CA+RyBmVjp2qRoO_NF-sWrQ4gMPhuRZOw7syz0Y6yaAjOtgD_xg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmWXWRxuKP-dDirYHXxJnnduyriTuN5kmCfQkC=z0JdiCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXHf_b48yvhZgbdB6q3Tr9=0oHTsnnRPM1jeMjCcCfiiQ@mail.gmail.com> <BF1BE6D99B52F84AB9B48B7CF6F17DA3DD6B8C@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
From: Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco
Message-ID: <b58f95dc-35ae-70ec-9d0d-5dd9e1d81d75@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 18:14:54 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BF1BE6D99B52F84AB9B48B7CF6F17DA3DD6B8C@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/aA6Bj3cf9XHBypY7N1-GRjphSrM>
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: Mon, 01 May 2017 22:17:18 -0000
On 5/1/17 13:38, James N Guichard wrote: > Okay lots of conversation but let me offer a revised version of Med’s > text that hopefully captures most of the discussion (changes highlighted): > > > > SHL (SFF Hop Limit): Indicates the maximum SFF hops for an *SFP*. The > initial SHL value SHOULD be configurable via the control plane; the > configured initial value can be specific to *one or more SFPs*. If no > initial value is explicitly provided, the default initial SHL value 63 > MUST be used. Each SFF involved in forwarding an NSH packet MUST > decrement *the *SHL value by 1 *prior to NSH forwarding lookup*. > *Decrementing by 1 from an incoming value of 0 shall result in a SHL > value of 63. The packet MUST NOT be forwarded if SHL is, after > decrement, 0 e.g. decrement SHALL occur before testing SHL for 0. * I think this text is clearer, and I agree (on the other thread) TTL makes more sense vs. a new piece of terminology. I still wonder if it's worth explicitly stating that this underrun methodology is there to support backwards compat? Joe > > > > Jim > > > > > > *From:*Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, May 01, 2017 1:02 PM > *To:* Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com> > *Cc:* sfc@ietf.org; mohamed.boucadair@orange.com; James N Guichard > <james.n.guichard@huawei.com>; Ron Parker <Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com> > *Subject:* Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header > > > > "Be liberal what you accept. Be conservative what you send." > > I think this sums what we have discussed - accept TTL 0, don't forward > TTL 0. > > > > Regards, Greg > > > > On May 1, 2017 8:58 AM, "Dave Dolson" <ddolson@sandvine.com > <mailto:ddolson@sandvine.com>> wrote: > > Ron, > > I too would like simple, but your table looks pretty complicated. > And I think it adds configuration for an SFF to know whether there > are others before it. > > My version of simple: > > TTL field of 0 means 64. > > Every SFF decrements TTL each time it forwards the NSH packet. If > decrementing from 1 would result in under-flow to 64, discard. > > > > > > > > > > *From:*Ron Parker [mailto:Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com > <mailto:Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com>] > *Sent:* Monday, May 1, 2017 11:41 AM > > > *To:* Dave Dolson; James N Guichard; mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; sfc@ietf.org > <mailto:sfc@ietf.org> > *Subject:* RE: TTL field within the NSH base header > > > > Agree that I’d opt for precision over simplicity. Which is what I > tried to convey a ways back on this thread regarding differentiated > behavior at the last SFF in the SFP vs. the non-last SFF in the > SFP. Subsequent comments didn’t seem to embrace that way of > describing things. Also, if there were consensus to supporting > that approach, backward compatibility for classifiers that emit > TTL=0 could be addressed by also describing behavior at the first > SFF vs. non-first. > > > > > > > > TTL=1 > > > > TTL=0 > > Only SFF (First and last) > > > > Valid – service local SF’s > > > > Valid for backward compatibility – service local SF’s > > First SFF and not Last > > > > Invalid – drop (since propagation to subsequent SFF with TTL=0 is > illegal) > > > > Valid for backward compatibility – service local SF’s and propagate > to subsequent SFF with TTL=63 > > Last SFF when >1 SFF’s for SFP > > > > Valid – service local SF’s > > > > Invalid –drop (due to bad behavior of previous SFF) > > > > *From:* Dave Dolson [mailto:ddolson@sandvine.com] > *Sent:* Monday, May 1, 2017 11:25 AM > *To:* Ron Parker <Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com > <mailto:Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com>>; James N Guichard > <james.n.guichard@huawei.com <mailto:james.n.guichard@huawei.com>>; > mohamed.boucadair@orange.com <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; > sfc@ietf.org <mailto:sfc@ietf.org> > *Subject:* RE: TTL field within the NSH base header > > > > I think precision in the definition is important for when expects > certain behavior for small values of TTL. E.g., by using trace-route > type of tools. > > We can’t just wave our hands and say drop packets with TTL near 0 or > 1 or 2. > > > > If one has a chain of 3 items, a TTL of 6 should work. (SFFs receive > packets 6 times in the system diagram that is usually drawn). > > > > (Simplified: I realize in some systems more SFF interactions are > required.) > > > > > > > > > > *From:*Ron Parker [mailto:Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com] > *Sent:* Monday, May 1, 2017 11:14 AM > *To:* Dave Dolson; James N Guichard; mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; sfc@ietf.org > <mailto:sfc@ietf.org> > *Subject:* RE: TTL field within the NSH base header > > > > Agree that differentiating “forwarding” to attached SF instances vs > subsequent SFF’s is logical and intuitive (to me) and I prefer to > acknowledge that there is a difference. But, I was addressing a > suggestion to simplify. In practice, 61 or 62 or 63 decrements > of TTL all probably mean the same thing J. > > > > Ron > > > > > > *From:* Dave Dolson [mailto:ddolson@sandvine.com] > *Sent:* Monday, May 1, 2017 11:11 AM > *To:* Ron Parker <Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com > <mailto:Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com>>; James N Guichard > <james.n.guichard@huawei.com <mailto:james.n.guichard@huawei.com>>; > mohamed.boucadair@orange.com <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; > sfc@ietf.org <mailto:sfc@ietf.org> > *Subject:* RE: TTL field within the NSH base header > > > > There is a difference between dropping the packet at receive vs. > transmit. > > A **terminating** SFF may accept a packet with TTL=1. I.e., where > the NSH header is removed. > > What matters is that it is not decremented to zero and forwarded as NSH. > > > > Otherwise we’d say, “huh, no point in sending a packet if TTL=1. And > huh, if received with TTL=2 then we might as well drop it…” Recurse > ad absurdum. > > > > Hence, the correct language needs to convey that a device > decrementing TTL (in order to forward NSH) must check if it would > result in zero. > > > > This conveys that, I think: > > The packet MUST NOT be forwarded to a next hop if SHL is decremented > to zero. > > > > > > -Dave > > > > > > *From:*Ron Parker [mailto:Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com] > *Sent:* Monday, May 1, 2017 10:50 AM > *To:* James N Guichard; mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; Dave Dolson; sfc@ietf.org > <mailto:sfc@ietf.org> > *Subject:* RE: TTL field within the NSH base header > > > > We could simplify this by saying that an SFF that receives an NSH > packet with TTL=1 shall drop the packet. That doesn’t require any > distinction of the type of forwarding. You could argue that > perhaps 1 means take care of local SF’s, only, but then we are back > to having to make that distinction. Given that we are starting at > 63 by default, finessing what happens when receiving 1 doesn’t seem > worthwhile to me. > > > > *From:* James N Guichard [mailto:james.n.guichard@huawei.com] > *Sent:* Monday, May 1, 2017 10:45 AM > *To:* Ron Parker <Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com > <mailto:Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com>>; > mohamed.boucadair@orange.com <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; > Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com <mailto:ddolson@sandvine.com>>; > sfc@ietf.org <mailto:sfc@ietf.org> > *Subject:* RE: TTL field within the NSH base header > > > > Yes but my point was if the SFF is **terminating** the service chain > there are no service functions left to be forwarded to so the > sentence does not make any sense. If however the SFF is terminating > the service chain and at termination the SHL reaches 0 then it > should still forward the packet (after removal of NSH). > > > > Jim > > > > *From:* Ron Parker [mailto:Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com] > *Sent:* Monday, May 01, 2017 10:28 AM > *To:* James N Guichard <james.n.guichard@huawei.com > <mailto:james.n.guichard@huawei.com>>; mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; Dave Dolson > <ddolson@sandvine.com <mailto:ddolson@sandvine.com>>; sfc@ietf.org > <mailto:sfc@ietf.org> > *Subject:* RE: TTL field within the NSH base header > > > > I’d like to disambiguate the word “forwarding”. From SFF > perspective, there is forwarding to attached SF instances and there > is forwarding to other SFFs. > > > > “SFFs that terminate a service chain MUST forward the packet to > attached service functions, even if SHL is decremented to 0” > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > *From:* sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *James N > Guichard > *Sent:* Monday, May 1, 2017 10:22 AM > *To:* mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; Dave Dolson > <ddolson@sandvine.com <mailto:ddolson@sandvine.com>>; sfc@ietf.org > <mailto:sfc@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header > > > > I don’t understand this sentence as if an SFF is terminating a > service chain then it **wont** be forwarding the packets to attached > SFs; Shouldn’t this sentence read “SFFs that terminate a service > chain MUST forward the packet even if SHL is decremented to 0” ? > > > > Jim > > > > *From:* mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> > [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com] > *Sent:* Friday, April 28, 2017 10:38 AM > *To:* Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com > <mailto:ddolson@sandvine.com>>; James N Guichard > <james.n.guichard@huawei.com <mailto:james.n.guichard@huawei.com>>; > sfc@ietf.org <mailto:sfc@ietf.org> > *Subject:* RE: TTL field within the NSH base header > > > > Re-, > > > > I see SHL as a means to prevent SFF loops. There is no value in > deleting a packet after an SFF decrement the SHL to 0, but that > packet is to be passed to SFs that are attached to this SFF. The > packet will be forwarded after stripping the NSH header; no risk for > SFF loops out there. No? > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > *De :*Dave Dolson [mailto:ddolson@sandvine.com] > *Envoyé :* vendredi 28 avril 2017 16:29 > *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; James N Guichard; sfc@ietf.org > <mailto:sfc@ietf.org> > *Objet :* RE: TTL field within the NSH base header > > > > Med, > > > > “SFFs that terminate a service chain MUST forward the packet to > attached SFs even if SHL is decremented to 0.” > > I don’t think this is right. > > If TTL/SHL is decremented to 0, this must not be forwarded as NSH. > > I see that **receiving** a packet with SHL=1 can result in chain > termination, i.e., NSH decapsulation. But not forwarding as NSH with > SHL=0. > > > > -Dave > > > > > > *From:*sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of > *mohamed.boucadair@orange.com <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> > *Sent:* Friday, April 28, 2017 9:36 AM > *To:* James N Guichard; sfc@ietf.org <mailto:sfc@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header > > > > Hi Jim, all, > > > > I have the following comments : > > · Change “TTL” to “SFF Hop Limit (SHL)” because this field is > not about a time to live but about a limit of SFF hops to be crossed. > > · I don’t understand what is meant by “testing”. > > · I suggest to make this change to cover the following points: > > o SHL should be configurable by the control plane. > > o Packets can be forwarded to SFs even if SHL is decremented to 0 > for the terminating SFF. > > o I don’t think it is a good idea to include “Decrementing by a > value of 1 from 0 shall result in a TTL value of 63” because this > will lead to a broken mechanism. > > > > OLD: > > 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. > > > > NEW: > > SHL (SFF Hop Limit): Indicates the maximum SFF hops for a service > chain. The initial SHL value SHOULD be configurable via the control > plane; the configured initial value can be specific to a chain or > all chains. If no initial value is explicitly provided, the default > initial SHL value 63 MUST be used. Each SFF involved in forwarding > an NSH packet MUST decrement SHL value by 1. The packet MUST NOT be > forwarded to a next hop SFF if SHL is decremented to zero. SFFs that > terminate a service chain MUST forward the packet to attached SFs > even if SHL is decremented to 0. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > *De :*sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] *De la part de* James N Guichard > *Envoyé :* jeudi 27 avril 2017 20:54 > *À :* sfc@ietf.org <mailto:sfc@ietf.org> > *Objet :* [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header > > > > 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 <mailto: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