Re: [sfc] [SFC] Comments of draft-krishnan-sfc-oam-req-framework

ramki Krishnan <ramk@Brocade.com> Wed, 09 July 2014 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ramk@Brocade.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 655CF1A0331 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 hv6y7SdIDq5b for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com (mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:71::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 562501A0067 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0048192 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s69GEcbo017257; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:18:49 -0700
Received: from hq1wp-exchub01.corp.brocade.com ([144.49.131.13]) by mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1myy3shn84-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 09 Jul 2014 09:18:49 -0700
Received: from HQ1WP-EXHUB02.corp.brocade.com (10.70.38.14) by HQ1WP-EXCHUB01.corp.brocade.com (10.70.36.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:18:48 -0700
Received: from HQ1-EXCH01.corp.brocade.com ([fe80::90ed:fc42:a7bb:9406]) by HQ1WP-EXHUB02.corp.brocade.com ([fe80::f5db:81ae:2a14:f915%12]) with mapi; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:18:48 -0700
From: ramki Krishnan <ramk@Brocade.com>
To: "meng.wei2@zte.com.cn" <meng.wei2@zte.com.cn>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 09:18:46 -0700
Thread-Topic: [sfc] [SFC] Comments of draft-krishnan-sfc-oam-req-framework
Thread-Index: Ac+aWQ6EceNrrNVZQjekcPf4lcvKSABMxAmQ
Message-ID: <C7634EB63EFD984A978DFB46EA5174F2C14FDB8855@HQ1-EXCH01.corp.brocade.com>
References: <007d01cf9a54$e9400110$bbc00330$@gmail.com> <OF95C3BBE5.7C717E26-ON48257D0F.000E4B8F-48257D0F.0010E55A@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <OF95C3BBE5.7C717E26-ON48257D0F.000E4B8F-48257D0F.0010E55A@zte.com.cn>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7634EB63EFD984A978DFB46EA5174F2C14FDB8855HQ1EXCH01corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.12.52, 1.0.14, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-07-09_05:2014-07-09,2014-07-09,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1407090194
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/jGH9UbiNbafOVeMz7zUFHsYWl8o
Subject: Re: [sfc] [SFC] Comments of draft-krishnan-sfc-oam-req-framework
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: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 16:18:55 -0000

Hi Meng,

Thanks for the comments. Please find inline.

Thanks,
Ramki

From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of meng.wei2@zte.com.cn
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 8:02 PM
To: sfc@ietf.org
Subject: [sfc] [SFC] Comments of draft-krishnan-sfc-oam-req-framework


Hi co-authors, guys,

Here are two comments and questions on this draft.

1)
+---+ +-+ +-+ +---+
|NVE|-|B|-|B|-|NVE|
+---+ +-+ +-+ +---+
       x---x          L2


I don't know why B&B are between NVEs rather than "L3 network".
If refer to draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-01, here should be "R" and IP-OAM.

Ramki: This is an exemplary depiction and not exhaustive - it is hard to cover all the possibilities in a single line in a figure; we will try to make this figure better as we evolve the draft. Please see text from draft below clarifying this aspect.

The SFC layer resides above the transport layer (where the transport
   layer can simply be implemented using VLANs or may be done using
   overlays such as VXLAN or NVGRE), and below the application layer
   (APP).  Depending on the underlying network
   technology, other OAM layers may be present (NVO3 OAM [NVO3 OAM],
   L3/MPLS OAM [RFC 7276], IEEE 802.1ag CFM [IEEE 802.1ag], etc.).  The
   use of the terms maintenance end point (MEP) and maintenance (MIP)
   are consistent with IEEE 802.1Q are simply used to denote points
   where monitoring services are configured.

2)
+-+ +--+ +-+ +-+ +--+
|B|-|SF|-|R|-|R|-|SF|
+-+ +--+ +-+ +-+ +--+
Classifer is the beginning of SFC, there might be a overlay network
between a classifer and an SF. I'm not sure classifer should be disscussed
here and there might exist an OAM mechanism between classifers and SFs.

Ramki: We don’t have any text on classifier. Can you please clarify your question ?

2) Any other scenarios? Only DC is not sufficient. I propose to
add some broadband & mobility scenarios.

Ramki: We are not restricting this draft to DCs. Please see my first comment. Also, what do you see additionally needed for broadband and mobility scenarios ?

Thanks,
Wei