IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sfc] Use of Alternate Marking Method in SFC

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Thu, 06 July 2017 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@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 EBF79131893 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 4sWrj2pkkExK for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x236.google.com (mail-wr0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::236]) (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 462D812EC15 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x236.google.com with SMTP id r103so13771076wrb.0 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 11:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=EI745cV93Tb+iHkEXeUHNeQkMA1uxLQOh7x6nFprY8E=; b=a5eNV0VQ5DJ+QZAVuuCVHqls/wl5UJjfeNR6R94GV0A/JQpYfERDQ9mWOe6galRDLg C1cUkBOphT4VdH7PWFYbEMTuOc5OGwbjd+2TzD+KqXEReWPvuVkSeX90FV6IEw7bME5J QP5aOkvHRTZwnNfF+bD8KhaFvvj8uBmSQn+ylR9WZlehOENgsdm6ueZV0ez9bwYuUIFq jQhlTqC/wO3Bj2MJRE0wfALo3lXY9hgfEWDERgPb8lstu9mgnnOo4IkhckOJxZlbS0+7 ECcLdNL7wxnKoYv9IpkAVH1BeMROaJ4swXYIE5Yhb3YyXY1vuyVAaWeUziDNk1Cn2ViI BRNQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=EI745cV93Tb+iHkEXeUHNeQkMA1uxLQOh7x6nFprY8E=; b=luxXcp2fqzihHLDg6I0vRHLKzcQJAE9zaxnuREB5Ur3Gfr6T2/+7vQy3S438Y5k2in coRvHGSmW+NeZFbiRKxq4m5C1C4MmJBDIebQ1r2mCdOzrjWQM9AKbt2z3WdaotWA5Jfs TBsYLLROyh73yYQrVtWh+HpwlyBi5n2Hc5FpEV3Vk9RblSMDkL6U5UTesze5Vbj1IMmX EIAzEfwErlscU9EP4flVjhKB676Nmxue6n2mU8pNpLM8jMA9YTxF6TBaKrTvWApx9mCD eSr8wql8ojK4dSIGeq6sXyKwh6mgTfmtwSxzOtn3gqocy79oNkCn8kr3whN9by1IdKsT CF2w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1106e7eDOS1R16fmJku0dEAt/nPWsILxv2gu8CkJGPoCoirCb1DS Gr8PUQnZyuGnNw==
X-Received: by 10.28.109.26 with SMTP id i26mr373774wmc.64.1499364798805; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 11:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.126] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b94sm817845wrd.40.2017.07.06.11.13.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Jul 2017 11:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>, "Fioccola Giuseppe (giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it)" <giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it>
References: <CA+RyBmVMN34DC49E01eCcLkSRjvCe4e43s6-rb7fZg4-AELJQg@mail.gmail.com> <624141DA-3092-4AF6-B103-1DA614701B10@cisco.com> <CABUE3X=R-+nRJ8hg8Za8Ps0_0QN0qczwJHKqvtdWtC+FRWNpJg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fa30465e-4e81-baad-5f30-29fe9486e781@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 19:13:16 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABUE3X=R-+nRJ8hg8Za8Ps0_0QN0qczwJHKqvtdWtC+FRWNpJg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/cK1fRnOYaIEXNtFi9-YESmO_rgc>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Use of Alternate Marking Method in SFC
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, 06 Jul 2017 18:13:22 -0000


On 04/07/2017 08:02, Tal Mizrahi wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> My perspective regarding #1 (I can't claim to be impartial, since I am 
> taking part in both IOAM and Alternate Marking :) is that IOAM and 
> Alternate Marking are not competing technologies, but complementary 
> technologies. IOAM provides fine-grained measurement with per-packet 
> and per-hop information, but comes at the cost of extending the data 
> packets. Alternate Marking, on the other hand, provides very accurate 
> per-flow measurement, at the cost of 1 or 2 bits per packet. Based on 
> this tradeoff, some operators may choose to use IOAM, others may use 
> Alternate Marking, and some may use both.
>
> Cheers,
> Tal.
>

+1

Stewart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email