[sfc] [SFC] Comments of draft-krishnan-sfc-oam-req-framework
meng.wei2@zte.com.cn Tue, 08 July 2014 03:02 UTC
Return-Path: <meng.wei2@zte.com.cn>
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 AF8611B2A14 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 20:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Iq2XxFvzKbpb for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 20:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 386AC1A00D6 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 20:02:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.168.119]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTP id 856401256C1C for <sfc@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:02:03 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse02.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.21]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 1378772EDEA for <sfc@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:02:03 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id s68323Dm017684 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:02:03 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from meng.wei2@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <007d01cf9a54$e9400110$bbc00330$@gmail.com>
To: sfc@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 95C3BBE5:7C717E26-48257D0F:000E4B8F; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF95C3BBE5.7C717E26-ON48257D0F.000E4B8F-48257D0F.0010E55A@zte.com.cn>
From: meng.wei2@zte.com.cn
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 11:02:04 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2014-07-08 11:02:00, Serialize complete at 2014-07-08 11:02:00
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0010E54C48257D0F_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn s68323Dm017684
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/mJnhsYLk3HpSHIouyc4wznflwGY
Subject: [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: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 03:02:19 -0000
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.
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.
2) Any other scenarios? Only DC is not sufficient. I propose to
add some broadband & mobility scenarios.
Thanks,
Wei
- [sfc] [SFC] Comments of draft-krishnan-sfc-oam-re… meng.wei2
- Re: [sfc] [SFC] Comments of draft-krishnan-sfc-oa… ramki Krishnan