IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement-02

"Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com> Fri, 24 January 2014 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <repenno@cisco.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 5F7041A0036 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:36:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.035
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 lySr38a6dL4E for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:36:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E8C1A0006 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:36:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5707; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1390584963; x=1391794563; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=Ge6wo0yVsC5956kFRNV+a4/uQVO/n9YxXuF0M2YWqQc=; b=QQjQGJJZS5/0vLiMrXUBAVfMTv9h+4XC1ldKLcr1lUkR3WHrWd6g73fo zY2BvZJzv6z0BGH7aLZfl/z8Ebv0p1g3IEjg3bEvMq+k33ke3dSvvO/TA lJbDq1+i9Ni2OuOe6ajZEXV9zU6PqxqTUImcic0/NV5Tm/U935hQIpEBc k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiAFAFOk4lKtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABagkhEgQ6od5M+gQ0WdIIlAQIEVCUSAQgRAwECKDkUCQgCBAENBYdxAxHISBeMdoIFEQeEOAEDmCeSHoMtgio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.95,713,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="15320141"
Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2014 17:35:46 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0OHZk6D010523 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:35:46 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.37]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:35:46 -0600
From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com>
To: Nicolas BOUTHORS <Nicolas.BOUTHORS@qosmos.com>, "mikebianc@aol.com" <mikebianc@aol.com>, "Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com" <Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com>, "jmh@joelhalpern.com" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "linda.dunbar@huawei.com" <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>, "Cathy.H.Zhang@huawei.com" <Cathy.H.Zhang@huawei.com>, "Paul Quinn (paulq)" <paulq@cisco.com>, "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <jguichar@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement-02
Thread-Index: AQHPGR/oBBXmRpg9rk2thNSnYBnFRZqUFS+G///sdAA=
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:35:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CF07E1F5.82CE%repenno@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <76B41B8FACE1514795D30EC137FF391D3CFDBC@LILAS.jungle.qosmos.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.21.118.183]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CF07E1F582CErepennociscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement-02
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: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:36:06 -0000

I would say yes but not sure in the charter.

There was no explicit discussion if a long chain can be broken (always?) into chains of one service function each.  But that does not imply the reverse, i.e., if multiple chains can be contracted into one long chain.

From: Nicolas BOUTHORS <Nicolas.BOUTHORS@qosmos.com<mailto:Nicolas.BOUTHORS@qosmos.com>>
Date: Friday, January 24, 2014 at 9:17 AM
To: "mikebianc@aol.com<mailto:mikebianc@aol.com>" <mikebianc@aol.com<mailto:mikebianc@aol.com>>, "Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com<mailto:Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com>" <Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com<mailto:Ron_Parker@affirmednetworks.com>>, "jmh@joelhalpern.com<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>" <jmh@joelhalpern.com<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>, "linda.dunbar@huawei.com<mailto:linda.dunbar@huawei.com>" <linda.dunbar@huawei.com<mailto:linda.dunbar@huawei.com>>, "Cathy.H.Zhang@huawei.com<mailto:Cathy.H.Zhang@huawei.com>" <Cathy.H.Zhang@huawei.com<mailto:Cathy.H.Zhang@huawei.com>>, "Paul Quinn (paulq)" <paulq@cisco.com<mailto:paulq@cisco.com>>, "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <jguichar@cisco.com<mailto:jguichar@cisco.com>>
Cc: "sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org>" <sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement-02

Could this lead to "chaining chains"?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email