> Same approach that IETF took for EVPN with various encap options like MPLS, > VXLAN, GENEVE,..
Well you do have the same thing with SFC/NSH, you can use any type of transport underneath: MPLS, VXLAN, GRE,UDP,… In your example EVPN provides the service, then you pick the transport you want. Here SFC/NSH may provide the service (chaining), then you pick also the transport you want. From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of LINGALA, AVINASH Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:06 To: BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; UTTARO, JAMES; Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp); Robert Raszuk; Adrian Farrel Cc: mpls; SPRING WG List; s...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpls] [sfc] Progress with draft-farrel-mpls-sfc I support this effort and I agree with Jim. As an operator we would like to see various encapsulation options for SFC. This would help an operator to pick the suitable encapsulation option for their networks. Same approach that IETF took for EVPN with various encap options like MPLS, VXLAN, GENEVE,.. Thanks, Avinash Lingala From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:25 AM To: UTTARO, JAMES <ju1...@att.com<mailto:ju1...@att.com>>; Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <wim.henderi...@nokia.com<mailto:wim.henderi...@nokia.com>>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>; Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> Cc: mpls <m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>>; SPRING WG List <spr...@ietf.org<mailto:spr...@ietf.org>>; bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>; s...@ietf.org<mailto:s...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [bess] [sfc] [mpls] Progress with draft-farrel-mpls-sfc Re-, This is really a matter of taste. Jim, whatever scheme we use for identifying service chains, there are requirements/constraints/new practices/new OAM procedures that need to be supported/honored for service chaining purposes. Those are not simple nor complex in MPLS vs. NSH over MPLS. I’m wrong? Cheers, Med De : UTTARO, JAMES [mailto:ju1...@att.com] Envoyé : lundi 19 mars 2018 14:10 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp); Robert Raszuk; Adrian Farrel Cc : mpls; SPRING WG List; s...@ietf.org<mailto:s...@ietf.org>; bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> Objet : RE: [sfc] [mpls] Progress with draft-farrel-mpls-sfc Med, When I say simply, I am speaking as an operator. The operations, systems, tools, institutional knowledge etc… in this space is around MPLS. There is a simpler path to creating simple chains by using MPLS instead of introducing a new encap. Thanks, Jim Uttaro From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> [mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:03 AM To: UTTARO, JAMES <ju1...@att.com<mailto:ju1...@att.com>>; Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <wim.henderi...@nokia.com<mailto:wim.henderi...@nokia.com>>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>; Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> Cc: mpls <m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>>; SPRING WG List <spr...@ietf.org<mailto:spr...@ietf.org>>; s...@ietf.org<mailto:s...@ietf.org>; bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [sfc] [mpls] Progress with draft-farrel-mpls-sfc Re-, I’m afraid that you cannot ‘simply’ re-use MPLS for chaining purposes without any code upgrade. NSH does provide the simple functionality you need; that is the information to identify a chain + avoid infinite loops. This is known as: MD Type 0x2 with length is 0x2. Of course you can encode that information using another channel, but still code change is needed. Please note that NSH is not at the same level as “GENEVE, VXLAN”. Cheers, Med De : UTTARO, JAMES [mailto:ju1...@att.com] Envoyé : lundi 19 mars 2018 13:48 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp); Robert Raszuk; Adrian Farrel Cc : mpls; SPRING WG List; s...@ietf.org<mailto:s...@ietf.org>; bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> Objet : RE: [sfc] [mpls] Progress with draft-farrel-mpls-sfc Med, We run an MPLS network so there is no NSH deployed anywhere. I want to create simple chains that we can make available to our WAN customers and I want to keep it simple from a technology and operations POV.. At this point I do not see the need to introduce NSH for what we need to do. I can simply re-use MPLS. Not sure why NSH is the winner here there are folks who advocate for GENEVE, NSH, VXLAN etc… If IETF is pushing for one encap than it would be helpful to define the set of requirements/criteria and compare the encaps. Thanks, Jim Uttaro From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> [mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 9:22 AM To: UTTARO, JAMES <ju1...@att.com<mailto:ju1...@att.com>>; Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <wim.henderi...@nokia.com<mailto:wim.henderi...@nokia.com>>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>; Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> Cc: mpls <m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>>; SPRING WG List <spr...@ietf.org<mailto:spr...@ietf.org>>; s...@ietf.org<mailto:s...@ietf.org>; bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [sfc] [mpls] Progress with draft-farrel-mpls-sfc Hi Jim, Perhaps I missed your point, but I’m not asking to disallow whatever transport encapsulation scheme deployed in a network for SFC purposes. What I’m saying is: * the IETF has defined a generic SFC architecture and went with a transport-agnostic approach that can be deployed in conjunction with one’s favorite transport encapsulation protocol. * Having a transport-agnostic approach get us away from redundant solutions to solve the same problem, redundant codes, etc. * If we allow to mimic NSH in MPLS, there is no reason to do this for MPLS only. * Instead of mimic NSH, I would personally favor re-using NSH. Cheers, Med De : UTTARO, JAMES [mailto:ju1...@att.com] Envoyé : lundi 19 mars 2018 12:33 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp); Robert Raszuk; Adrian Farrel Cc : mpls; SPRING WG List; s...@ietf.org<mailto:s...@ietf.org>; bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> Objet : RE: [sfc] [mpls] Progress with draft-farrel-mpls-sfc Where I get a little lost in this discussion is assuming that there must be one encap for SFC chains.. IMO SFC should define encap agnostic behaviors, NSH is an encap that has tons of functionality but if a simple chain is needed why is it that an existing encap should be disallowed by the IETF?? I want to simplify the network, when I say network it is all of the plumbing to realize a service for a customer including, WAN, MAN, DC etc.… From an OpS POV having a single encap across an integrated solution is quite attractive. Thanks, Jim Uttaro From: sfc [mailto:sfc-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 5:52 AM To: Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <wim.henderi...@nokia.com<mailto:wim.henderi...@nokia.com>>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>; Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> Cc: mpls <m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>>; SPRING WG List <spr...@ietf.org<mailto:spr...@ietf.org>>; s...@ietf.org<mailto:s...@ietf.org>; bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [sfc] [mpls] Progress with draft-farrel-mpls-sfc Hi all, Wim has a point here. For all these proposals, a new behavior is needed to be followed by SFC-aware nodes. What differs is the channel used to signal a chain and to supply additional data for SFC purposes. Leveraging on existing code/capabilities is good for a vendor/implementer, but the risk is that a given solution will need to support all/many of these flavors. Which is not optimal. The IETF has already a consensus on a transport-agnostic solution. If we open the door for MPLS, we need to open it also for IPv6 EH and so on. Are we OK to go that way? If yes, what is the NEW problem are we trying to solve? Cheers, Med De : sfc [mailto:sfc-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) Envoyé : dimanche 18 mars 2018 07:26 À : Robert Raszuk; Adrian Farrel Cc : mpls; SPRING WG List; bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>; s...@ietf.org<mailto:s...@ietf.org> Objet : Re: [sfc] [mpls] Progress with draft-farrel-mpls-sfc Indeed, this is exactly my point. If you want an interim solution you want to use what we have and draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining-04 is an example of how you can use the existing data-plane for service chaining. draft-farrel-mpls-sfc requires an implementation change in the data-plane, whether we like it or not and an upgrade is required even in brownfield deployments. So, you better go directly to the final solution defined in IETF SFC WG. If we standardize draft-farrel-mpls-sfc we end up supporting both forever. From: <rras...@gmail.com<mailto:rras...@gmail.com>> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> Date: Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 19:13 To: Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> Cc: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <wim.henderi...@nokia.com<mailto:wim.henderi...@nokia.com>>, mpls <m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>>, SPRING WG List <spr...@ietf.org<mailto:spr...@ietf.org>>, "s...@ietf.org<mailto:s...@ietf.org>" <s...@ietf.org<mailto:s...@ietf.org>>, "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [sfc] [mpls] Progress with draft-farrel-mpls-sfc Hi Adrian, > That proxy may be a bump in the wire between the SFF and SF I am not so sure about that ... If this would be just "bump in the wire" you would have zero guarantees that all packets which need to go via given function will actually hit that bump - so this is far from a reliable network service. There must be associated control plane component attracting traffic to such bump. That mechanism with basic MPLS (where labels by based MPLS architecture are of local significance) is available with L3VPN extensions as already progressing in BESS (draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining-04) so why not use this for as you state "interim" ? No one really addressed that question yet and I think it is a critical one to make any further judgement as to the future of this individual submission. Cheers, R. On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> wrote: Hi Wim, Thanks for reading the draft so carefully. > Adrian, on replacement of NSH. You will have to change the SF with this > proposal > in Non proxy case so this proposal does not solve a brownfield case. Which > SF(s) > support MPLS? This is not about "replacing" the NSH. As you'll see from point 2, below, this is about providing an interim / migration technology. Clearly (and I think you agree) in the case where an SF is not SFC-aware, a proxy must be used. That proxy may be a bump in the wire between the SFF and SF, a module of the SFF, or a module of the SF. In the case of PNFs, only the first two options are available. In the case of a VNF, all three options exist. Now, let us recall where we are starting from. There are PNFs and there are VNFs built to look like PNFs. These SFs do not support MPLS or NSH. Similarly, there are routers that do not support the NSH. Now, of course, we would all love to sell major upgrades so that every component of the network is SFC-aware. But we would also like to start deploying SFC into existing network infrastructure. So your question misses the point. The question to ask is which brownfield routers and SFs support NSH? Cheers, Adrian _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
