Re: [Time] Fault management in SFC

Qin Wu <> Mon, 07 July 2014 12:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C921A0400; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 05:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.401
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FtYoDfZc-mtC; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 05:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E29CB1A0008; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 05:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BJS22592; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:57:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:57:15 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 20:57:05 +0800
From: Qin Wu <>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <>, ramki Krishnan <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Fault management in SFC
Thread-Index: AQHPl2IwdP+ejxTE2UyNesn6tN0/7ZuPaEiAgABio4CABMd+EA==
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 12:57:05 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457FDDEnkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: Sam Aldrin <>, Jiangyuanlong <>, "Nobo Akiya \(nobo\)" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Time] Fault management in SFC
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Transport Independent OAM in Multi-Layer network Entity \(TIME\) discussion list." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:57:40 -0000

The generic requirements aspect of<> maybe more fit into
draft-king-opsawg-time-multi-layer-oam-use-case-01 did sort out some high level requirements in the section 4.
But high level requirements in draft-king-opsawg-time-multi-layer-oam-use-case-01 are not specific to SFC OAM.
They also can be applicable to Overlay OAM described in section 3.3 of draft-king-opsawg-time-multi-layer-oam-use-case.

Regarding draft-jxc-sfc-fm-00, is it too rush to go to solution scope to discuss what kind of SFC specific OAM functionalities need to be support and
What SFC specific packet format looks like?

·¢¼þÈË: sfc [] ´ú±í Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2014Äê7ÔÂ5ÈÕ 3:41
ÊÕ¼þÈË: ramki Krishnan
³­ËÍ: Sam Aldrin; Jiangyuanlong; Nobo Akiya (nobo);;
Ö÷Ìâ: Re: [sfc] Fault management in SFC

Hi, Ramki, Yuanlong,

Thanks for bringing up these two documents! Here's my initial observations:


  *   This document seems to be really thin in actual content.
  *   Removing the introduction, acronyms, and boiler, there's a bit over a page of very generic very high-level requirements.
  *   Although the title says "SFC OAM Requirements and Framework", I do not see text supporting a framework.


  *   I am concerned with the creation of a new OAM Protocol in Section 3. SFC architectural documents have a goal of reusing OAM protocols, not re-inventing.
  *   It's not clear of the value of defining a TLV structure when there's no Types. In other words, why draw TLV ASCII diagrams when the requirements and gap analysis are not clear?
  *   The document says things like "BFD can also be used as a tool of proactive CC & CV in SFC.", but then goes on into drawing packets...

I agree this can be a topic for discussions in Toronto.



On Jul 4, 2014, at 9:48 AM, ramki Krishnan <<>> wrote:

Hi Sam, Yuanlong, All,

We uploaded a document on the SFC OAM topic yesterday  ¨C this includes requirements besides framework. Given the importance of this topic, guess many of us were working on this in parallel. We should probably get together in Toronto to take the appropriate next steps.


From: sfc [] On Behalf Of Jiangyuanlong
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 1:17 AM
To: Sam Aldrin;<>
Cc: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); Nobo Akiya (nobo)
Subject: [sfc] Fault management in SFC

Hi Sam and all,

I¡¯m glad to see your draft on SFC OAM framework, it is a very basic and important piece of work in my view.

We have also uploaded an I-D discussing fault management in SFC, does anyone of you have an interest in this kind of work?
The link to this I-D is:

Your opinions are greatly appreciated.


From: sfc [] On Behalf Of Sam Aldrin
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 3:21 AM
Cc: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); Nobo Akiya (nobo)
Subject: [sfc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework-00.txt


We have submitted a new draft for SFC OAM framework.
Kindly review the ID and provide your comments.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <<>>
Date: Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:17 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework-00.txt
To: Nobo Akiya <<>>, "Sam K. Aldrin" <<>>, Carlos Pignataro <<>>

A new version of I-D, draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Sam K. Aldrin and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework
Revision:       00
Title:          Service Function Chaining Operations, Administration and Maintenance Framework
Document date:  2014-07-02
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          11

   This document provides reference framework for Operations,
   Administration and Maintenance (OAM) of Service Function Chaining

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at<>g/>.

The IETF Secretariat