Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header
Ron Parker <Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com> Thu, 27 April 2017 19:24 UTC
Return-Path: <Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.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 74B081296B3 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 EbHquerkpvlF for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hub021-ca-5.exch021.serverdata.net (hub021-ca-5.exch021.serverdata.net [64.78.56.70]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDAB8129B66 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX021-W3-CA-2.exch021.domain.local ([10.254.4.78]) by HUB021-CA-5.exch021.domain.local ([10.254.4.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:20:36 -0700
From: Ron Parker <Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com>
To: James N Guichard <james.n.guichard@huawei.com>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: TTL field within the NSH base header
Thread-Index: AdK/h0bahW5bvXGwSoCeYu3QIaIxxgAAqFVg
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:20:35 +0000
Message-ID: <CDF2F015F4429F458815ED2A6C2B6B0B83991FDC@MBX021-W3-CA-2.exch021.domain.local>
References: <BF1BE6D99B52F84AB9B48B7CF6F17DA3DD5F8E@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <BF1BE6D99B52F84AB9B48B7CF6F17DA3DD5F8E@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [50.205.79.154]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CDF2F015F4429F458815ED2A6C2B6B0B83991FDCMBX021W3CA2exch_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/lvGdkT6szLmD3H2YbcejgB_LXWk>
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: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:24:01 -0000
I had to really think about the language around decrementing by 1 from 0 and reaching 63. This would only occur in an error scenario where a preceding SFF misbehaved, wouldn't it? Why are we insistent that the test for 0 happen after decrement, thereby creating this problem. I suspect that this has been already discussed and I apologize if I missed it, but if the language were simplified to say an SFF that receives an NSH with TTL=1 shall not forward it to another SFF (e.g., allowing it to engage its local SF instances, still). Otherwise, it must decrement by 1 before forwarding to another SFF. An exact wording along these lines might be something like: TTL: Service plane time-to-live. An SFF MUST test the TTL before forwarding to another SFF for a given Service Function Chain. If the received TTL value is 1, the SFF MUST drop packets that would otherwise have been forwarded to another SFF, but SHALL send such packets to attached service functions if the SFF terminates the Service Function Chain. If the TTL value is greater than 1, the SFF must decrement the TTL by 1 before forwarding to another SFF. The default for originating an NSH packet is a TTL value of 63. From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James N Guichard Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 2:54 PM To: sfc@ietf.org Subject: [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
- 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