IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> Wed, 21 June 2017 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <tal.mizrahi.phd@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 E72DF131BF0 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 02:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 W7K2bT5iupEh for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 02:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22b.google.com (mail-lf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22b]) (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 912CB131BEB for <sfc@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 02:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id l13so30058557lfl.1 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 02:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Q1pnuog6VfZiT5tJuAPNnzRhJSnzENX8hgWMTqWCet0=; b=SBZNy451sVpelQJFa4kppxXqx8Qys8MkIT+oZWsS+YRRQ4s8OCuzncjQQ51qtrdhBF qX1EYWbNcZMY17TybhGYtgSwRIkXfrpXyrgmOpImdIiGuDB+UqKLm4Mjqt8GCi6o1f6o kRL2rDaRs38XL9WUE8qsjwhRh1TNXbH6TRA4M640xxgxrfn0Nkxc4FZoewrh4YhkUaAf 2Ly9avCeezYz6xRqDKc1CKeN+OP0ru0FEYas5/7+aYLzINfPW3Mg4kpEEFf6+KZuSLs1 VtNbPdj14dv9W1YL2g8OmDCrtuJJ6/xBg/a/I2RILmasoeBboUiLymfwAcsik73i7/dA yjqw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Q1pnuog6VfZiT5tJuAPNnzRhJSnzENX8hgWMTqWCet0=; b=VLaVkuc+UqL/wMHN8WNOkUvYYAbICvFpoQxAjVwFBpZLxAEo4FAnqdh3+yjiH9bwp9 Z+u3kkcyb0QhmOVOT5cG6RK/NrasW1cWDXqzRs+l4IHAM9Uwd9R0TQfsLHRTg3jPzf/l gG5ZdAhUPmPDpDYElXTAP4mYp3Z6d1QRcB2TxHYonfZPWftQNCa0uagnUR8hjMpSIuJC IBfbarUd8DnXy2ZEuUsccMoXquPcHHSai3cCrUEQI/n0qFI+qgrbOJOG4FSaeRbMkeur XtdkYlDG3g7mopf/bAW+Lx+HgsJXudkjA2wsALBs4bGD80hVRPe6Rbkdto6N45jLHwmW iuNg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOxcFHY2ABPRL03Dq7d8ag18+uLlMbS+5iYw6JEbQLIlQAJQHkLY f2cWAK6L8t6fj7BkeuJ6rrZaYxnVWQ==
X-Received: by 10.80.165.164 with SMTP id a33mr590589edc.53.1498035674805; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 02:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.170.19 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 02:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmVMN34DC49E01eCcLkSRjvCe4e43s6-rb7fZg4-AELJQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+RyBmVMN34DC49E01eCcLkSRjvCe4e43s6-rb7fZg4-AELJQg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:01:14 +0300
Message-ID: <CABUE3XkPYckBCbafFESpoAGhuwLGuZWVtaqy43Oqq_WGOCORPw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: sfc@ietf.org, "Fioccola Giuseppe (giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it)" <giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c280641f8e90552749c50"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/dHFLUfgJHV3LsdhII7C4tUI-N2k>
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: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:01:19 -0000

Hi Greg, Giuseppe,

I believe this work is valuable to the working group.

- My main comment is that it is not currently clear which bits in the base
header should be used as the marking bits. Section 3 should be clarified in
this context.
- The draft currently proposes either to use two marking bits, or a single
marking bit. For single marking the draft also presents two options. That
is a total of three options. I assume these options are presented for
clarity, but it would be great if in a later version of the memo this could
be narrowed down from 3 options to a single option. As always - the less
options the better.
- Section 5: please clarify whether the request is to allocate a value of
the OAM field, or the request is to allocate bits from the reserved bit
pool in the NSH base header.

Cheers,
Tal.

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
> would like to bring your attention to the draft  Performance Measurement
> (PM) with Alternate Marking Method in Service
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-sfc-pmamm-00>Function Chaining
> (SFC) Domain <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-sfc-pmamm-00> we've
> submitted earlier. Alternate Marking method allows performance measurement
> performed close to passive measurement methods.
> Greatly appreciate your questions, comments, and suggestions.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> sfc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email