Re: [sfc] Use of Alternate Marking Method in SFC

Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> Tue, 04 July 2017 07:02 UTC

Return-Path: <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.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 E16FE131893 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 00:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 tJRxe3N1Q7s8 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 00:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2841413186F for <sfc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 00:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id f67so74280964wmh.1 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=R5e4Q2ve2ImJtNsmQBmtj0n25ufLYVMvKH0UAtfZUHE=; b=bNV+b47UlKxUVw2bbtAbBGlMmXLIO8XWAUCelJrh3pvEKl+JeJIfZtlfUwD1IJrVT4 65IBIrDXbKnf0HXko0OKwAsEJ8cm7pv5X1o434zEA8VSvWMi9alXH2BxuYZx9V6wYed8 YmH86ID5ACuXQXhouRKiRx/zyQVcGXg8rgPNMmnFlqvQv79aaMllh1eKWi98rIUjP+Di jtxWBM1+gvIQ/6K4GleoHK1i/b5rmNhfq0BjY10fhz7kd8PlWFiQ+exEltbrAnBziQmO tq0/6tL6nOljQ462p316rbkquxSY2yqSSgn/kfxThGCYfpjlqg3JDdZB+NCCawNhgwrL RoKg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=R5e4Q2ve2ImJtNsmQBmtj0n25ufLYVMvKH0UAtfZUHE=; b=TyLjvxEqQAxHYBAeAXXy4I4nV0Pr6tZgTycIggbMDAfbAsGUGpyudr4GIztDK9YteT 2X+Mip3Tzoj9WFRljxSSGwz4SBFLg3lrfbTosD+e8w3AXedbSl8Iufan2m4W7Ttb5PWl CZQ/8O7Rhdojpv7JBwqmD9FQGcTsXvfQRLFoDDNTC+sQH5AxuJiRdiX7nPmY/I4eFZpe 6btBAe4rDHKPbixAfiitQpe7cEM6YRi3utplZN5FPs4wuEI+12ndWwPrme9tWLWsrK/z f2IqeZqDjOWCV6uFHBISptPbajolfkd878kE/VEgShuG18OPD9RA/MuqEzXmfRjWwZsc zR0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwYQHNP3aeIPAO+BwM2cZ3eoimimQfJg+MSDRuoEkUooM1R7gJx bN+K2vwMK/nutxRhzwxMP9/7p8bHDg==
X-Received: by 10.80.139.151 with SMTP id m23mr16929801edm.140.1499151746733; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.170.19 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 00:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <624141DA-3092-4AF6-B103-1DA614701B10@cisco.com>
References: <CA+RyBmVMN34DC49E01eCcLkSRjvCe4e43s6-rb7fZg4-AELJQg@mail.gmail.com> <624141DA-3092-4AF6-B103-1DA614701B10@cisco.com>
From: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 10:02:26 +0300
Message-ID: <CABUE3X=R-+nRJ8hg8Za8Ps0_0QN0qczwJHKqvtdWtC+FRWNpJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "Fioccola Giuseppe (giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it)" <giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c218654207205537877cf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/zakCMViAE5gIwUg7_d9fsgj_sFE>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Use of Alternate Marking Method in SFC
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, 04 Jul 2017 07:02:31 -0000

Hi Carlos,

My perspective regarding #1 (I can't claim to be impartial, since I am
taking part in both IOAM and Alternate Marking :) is that IOAM and
Alternate Marking are not competing technologies, but complementary
technologies. IOAM provides fine-grained measurement with per-packet and
per-hop information, but comes at the cost of extending the data packets.
Alternate Marking, on the other hand, provides very accurate per-flow
measurement, at the cost of 1 or 2 bits per packet. Based on this tradeoff,
some operators may choose to use IOAM, others may use Alternate Marking,
and some may use both.

Cheers,
Tal.

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
cpignata@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Greg, Ciao Giuseppe!
>
> Thanks for sharing this document with SFC!
>
> Looking at it, I have three main high-level comments:
>
>    1. Overall: While clearly I see the usability of this, I wonder if
>    this is too narrow of a solution in presence of things like IOAM that allow
>    to do marking as well as much richer set of performance measurements.
>    2. Syntax: The draft talks about two bits, but their location is not
>    specified! That makes for an IANA Considerations section that is trivial.
>    (or going back to #1, the two bits coulee have easily be placed in IOAM.
>    3. “can be viewed as true example of passive performance” -> The
>    definition from RFC 7799 seems to potentially disagree with this.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Carlos.
>
> On Jun 14, 2017, at 10:53 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
> would like to bring your attention to the draft  Performance Measurement
> (PM) with Alternate Marking Method in Service
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-sfc-pmamm-00> Function Chaining
> (SFC) Domain <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-sfc-pmamm-00>  we've
> submitted earlier. Alternate Marking method allows performance measurement
> performed close to passive measurement methods.
> Greatly appreciate your questions, comments, and suggestions.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> sfc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>
>
> —
> Carlos Pignataro, carlos@cisco.com
>
> *“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself
> sound more photosynthesis."*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> sfc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>
>