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

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 07:53:48 -0700

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

---

From: Tal Mizrahi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:01:14 +0300

Hi Greg, Giuseppe,

I believe this work is valuable to the working group.

- My main comment is that it is not currently clear which bits in the base
header should be used as the marking bits. Section 3 should be clarified in
this context.
- The draft currently proposes either to use two marking bits, or a single
marking bit. For single marking the draft also presents two options. That
is a total of three options. I assume these options are presented for
clarity, but it would be great if in a later version of the memo this could
be narrowed down from 3 options to a single option. As always - the less
options the better.
- Section 5: please clarify whether the request is to allocate a value of
the OAM field, or the request is to allocate bits from the reserved bit
pool in the NSH base header.

Cheers,
Tal.

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>
>

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:55:54 -0500

Hi Tal,
thank you for for the review and great, on-target comments.
Please find my answers in-line tagged GIM>>.

Regards,
Greg

> header should be used as the marking bits. Section 3 should be clarified in
GIM>> You are absolutely correct. We've started the draft around time of
the WG interim meeting and discussions about proposed changes to NSH Base.
As all these questions been resolved, I agree, it is time to pick location
for Marking field in the NSH Base.

> be narrowed down from 3 options to a single option. As always - the less
GIM>> Very much agree with your practical suggestion. Will be glad to work
together on that.

> pool in the NSH base header.
GIM>> It is the former, allocation of values of the Marking field (I
believe we should other than OAM field name as there's already O(AM) flag
in the Base header). Of course, current text assumes allocation of two
bits-long field.