IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 02 May 2017 05:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 2553A1294CC for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 May 2017 22:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 Q5hrLXLyCuTJ for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 May 2017 22:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta135.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7E2A129510 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 May 2017 22:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr03.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.67]) by opfednr20.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 8211D40313; Tue, 2 May 2017 07:55:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme3.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.50.66]) by opfednr03.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 61C871A0062; Tue, 2 May 2017 07:55:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCNORMAD.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::f1a0:3c6b:bc7b:3aaf]) by OPEXCNORM4E.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::d5d9:c91a:994b:fc0b%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0339.000; Tue, 2 May 2017 07:55:47 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>, James N Guichard <james.n.guichard@huawei.com>
CC: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header
Thread-Index: AdK/h0bahW5bvXGwSoCeYu3QIaIxxgAl9XdgAAMaEWAAADpXIACWaNtAAAAsukAAAKE6YAAAGqWwAACgp7AAAECnkAAASG0gAABNm0AAANa8gAACbz2e///ox4CAAA4MAP//Ic8w
Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 05:55:46 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E5F2F8@OPEXCNORMAD.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <BF1BE6D99B52F84AB9B48B7CF6F17DA3DD5F8E@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com> <CDF2F015F4429F458815ED2A6C2B6B0B8399F104@MBX021-W3-CA-2.exch021.domain.local> <BF1BE6D99B52F84AB9B48B7CF6F17DA3DD69C4@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com> <CDF2F015F4429F458815ED2A6C2B6B0B8399F193@MBX021-W3-CA-2.exch021.domain.local> <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E98705BFE87@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <CDF2F015F4429F458815ED2A6C2B6B0B839A023E@MBX021-W3-CA-2.exch021.domain.local> <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E98705BFFB9@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <CDF2F015F4429F458815ED2A6C2B6B0B839A0285@MBX021-W3-CA-2.exch021.domain.local> <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E98705C00B4@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <CA+RyBmVjp2qRoO_NF-sWrQ4gMPhuRZOw7syz0Y6yaAjOtgD_xg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmWXWRxuKP-dDirYHXxJnnduyriTuN5kmCfQkC=z0JdiCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXHf_b48yvhZgbdB6q3Tr9=0oHTsnnRPM1jeMjCcCfiiQ@mail.gmail.com> <BF1BE6D99B52F84AB9B48B7CF6F17DA3DD6B8C@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com> <911fc1e3-fc7f-a551-773a-8e6e6db550df@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <911fc1e3-fc7f-a551-773a-8e6e6db550df@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E5F2F8OPEXCNORMADcorp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/tcYbB4RaWNYPZEZbFP3Y9PRHK8Y>
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: Tue, 02 May 2017 05:58:35 -0000

Hi Eric,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

De : sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Eric C Rosen
Envoyé : lundi 1 mai 2017 20:29
À : James N Guichard
Cc : sfc@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [sfc] TTL field within the NSH base header

On 5/1/2017 1:38 PM, James N Guichard wrote:

SHL (SFF Hop Limit)

I hate to interrupt the discussion of modular arithmetic with a terminology issue, but I'd recommend against this terminology change.  "TTL" is a pretty well known term with a well known use.
[Med] I'm sure you know that TTL was also expected to be decremented each second.
   Inventing a new acronym here can only cause confusion.  I don't think anyone's suggested modifying the IP specs to change "TTL" to "IP Hop Limit".
[Med] This was already happened when specifying a new version of IP. There is no TTL in IPv6, but a Hop Limit.

(Once upon a time, there was some thinking that it might take a packet more than a second to transit a router, and the original IP TTL requirement was to decrement the TTL by at least 1 per hop, but by more than 1 if the packet spent more than a second in a given router.  But for most of the last 40 years, everyone has known that "TTL" means "hop count".)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email