Hi Andy, I‘m struggling to make the connection, since draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining is specifically about how to do service chaining without needing a new protocol like NSH, so SFF labels would never be used.
In draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining , if MPLS transport were used between Service Function Forwarders, a label would be allocated for a SF interface when a route pointing to it is installed (by the controller). This would be advertised to the controller and from there sent to the forwarders with egress interfaces for the previous SF in the chain. The label would be used at the bottom of the MPLS stack as is done normally. Cheers Stuart -914 886 2534 From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agma...@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 5:10 PM To: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bess-service-chain...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bess-service-chain...@ietf.org> Cc: "draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulat...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulat...@ietf.org> Subject: Comment on draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining-06 Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org> Resent-To: <r...@cisco.com>, <wsmac...@juniper.net>, <dh...@cisco.com>, <brunorijs...@gmail.com>, <mnapier...@att.com>, <thomas.mo...@orange.com> Resent-Date: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 5:10 PM I just read the new revision of draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining. Although the draft doesn't use the RFC 8300 NSH, it could very easily take advantage of features provided by the NSH (such as metadata) by adding NSH over MPLS as defined in draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation to the list of encapsulations listed in section 2.5. And this draft provides an excellent label distribution mechanism for NSH over MPLS. It would make a lot of sense to add a reference to draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation in the list of encapsulations in section 2.5. Thanks, Andy
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
