* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Sfc Status Pages

Service Function Chaining (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard, Martin Vigoureux | 2013-Dec-20 —  
Chairs
 
 


IETF-103 sfc minutes

Session 2018-11-08 1350-1550: Chitlada 3 - Audio stream - sfc chatroom

Minutes

minutes-103-sfc-01 minutes



          ===============================
          Service Function Chaining (SFC)
          IETF 103 - Bangkok
          Thursday, November 8, 2018
          13:50-15:50 (UTC+07:00)
          Meeting Minutes
          ===============================
          
          SFC WG chairs: Joel Halpern, Jim Guichard
          SFC secretary: Tal Mizrahi
          
          Meeting minutes: Tal Mizrahi
          
          
          Chair Slides
          ------------
          Presenter: Joel Halpern
          Slides:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-sfc-sfc-chairs-slides-00
          
          
          Summary:
          - Note well applies.
          - The agenda for the current session was presented.
          - WG progress was presented.
          - RFC 8459 was published.
          - The multi-layer OAM document was adopted. That work needs to be aligned
          with the OAM framework.
          
          
          NSH Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data (Frank Brockners)
          --------------------------------------------------------
          Drafts:
                  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-00
                  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit-01
          
          Presentation:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-sfc-nsh-encapsulation-for-in-situ-oam-data-00
          
          
          Summary:
          - IOAM over NSH: the draft is pretty stable.
          - Looking for any last comments before requesting WG LC.
          - Proof of transit: draft changed based on discussion in IETF 102. Now
          includes in-order preservation.
          - We have the SSSS with order preservation, and we have the HMAC. There
          is a question of whether we should have both, or define only one.
          - We will take it to the list.
          
          Discussion:
          - Greg mirsky: no point in having both options.
          - Kent liang: what is the value of being in order. This will help
          understand what we want. Home much value is there in option 2?
          - Frank: with SSSS (Shamir's Secret) you are not forced to do the
          order-preservation trick. In some cases we do not need order preservation,
          and can save the trouble.
          - Joel: if it is not expensive, you can receive order preservation.
          
          
          Active OAM for Service Function Chains in Networks (Greg Mirsky)
          ----------------------------------------------------------------
          Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam-12
          
          Presentation:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-sfc-active-oam-for-service-function-chains-in-networks-00
          
          
          Summary:
          - The name of the draft has changed, since it was adopted.
          - An overview of the changes was presented.
          
          Discussion:
          - Adrian Farrel: two scenarios: O-bit is clear and the protocol is OAM,
          or O-bit is set and protocol is not OAM. Which of these scenarios is an
          error?
          - Greg: we need to consider for each case whether we consider this an
          error or not.
          - Adrian: I believe the second should be considered an error.
          - Frank Brockners: if the next protocl tells you that you have OAM,
          what is the value of setting the O bit or not?
          - Joel: the way we define it, SFF should not look beyond the network
          service header. That is what the O bit is for.
          - Frank: got it.
          
          
          Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking (Greg Mirsky)
          ------------------------------------------------------------
          Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-sfc-pmamm-06
          
          Presentation:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-sfc-performance-measurement-with-alternate-marking-00
          
          
          Summary:
          - Draft now suggests to use a single marking bit, replacing a bit that
          is currently not used in the NSH.
          - Would like to request working group adoption.
          
          
          Hybrid Two-Step Performance Measurement Method (Greg Mirsky)
          ------------------------------------------------------------
          Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-ippm-hybrid-two-step-02
          
          Presentation:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-sfc-hybrid-two-step-performance-measurement-method-00
          
          
          Discussion:
          - Sumandra Majee: follow-up packets - does it mean the packet has to be
          kept by the devices?
          - Greg: there can be only one outstanding packet at any given time.
          - Sumandra: the follow-up must follow the trigger packet immediately?
          - Greg: you cannot guarantee that it is immediately, but shortly
          afterwards.
          
          
          
          Network Service Header (NSH) Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
          Support (Donald Eastlake)
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          
          Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support-01
          
          Presentation:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-sfc-network-service-header-nsh-explicit-congestion-notification-ecn-support-00
          
          
          Summary:
          - Quick overview, since this was presnted in the last IETF meeting.
          
          Discussion:
          - Jeff Tantsura: I support adoption.
          - Joel: authors should send an email to the list and request adoption.
          
          
          Geneve applicability for service function chaining (Sami Boutros)
          -----------------------------------------------------------------
          Draft:
          https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-nvo3-geneve-applicability-for-sfc-02
          
          
          Presentation:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-sfc-geneve-applicability-for-service-function-chaining-00
          
          
          Summary:
          - The draft was presented.
          
          Discussion:
          - Kent Liang: you mentioned two options. One of the options was to
          function as SFF.
          - Sami: actually NVEs will act as SFF in both options. In a service
          topology in NVO3 domain. NVE is actually an SFF. NVE is mapped to a
          service function. Two levels of encapsulation.
          - Jim: first option you use the NSH header for forwarding decision. Second
          option - not.
          - Joel: same tradeoff as always: state is in the device, or state is in
          the header. From and SFC perspective we do not care how the table gets
          populated.
          - Kent: you have hop by hop information. But you don't have to use
          SPI/SI.
          - Joel: if the transport has enough information, you can use the transport
          header to take the forwarding decision.
          
          
          SFC Path OAM (Ting Ao)
          ----------------------
          Drafts:
                  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified-02
          
                  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency-03
          
          Presentation:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-sfc-sfc-path-oam-00
          
          
          Summary:
          - Authors are requesting WG adoption.
          
          Discussion:
          - Joel: send your request to the list.
          
          
          Service Function Chaining: Subscriber and Policy Identification (Dirk
          Von-Hugo)
          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          
          Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sfc-serviceid-header-01
          
          Presentation:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-sfc-service-function-chaining-subscriber-and-policy-identification-00
          
          
          Discussion:
          - Joel: I thank the authors for this significantly improved version of
          the document. I would like to see more discussion on the mailing list.
          
          
          Name-Based Service Function Forwarder (nSFF) component within SFC
          framework (Debashish Purkayastha)
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          
          Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-trossen-sfc-name-based-sff-01
          
          Presentation:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-sfc-name-based-service-function-forwarder-nsff-component-within-sfc-framework-01
          
          
          Discussion:
          - Joel: the interaction between nSFF and NR is a new protocol that you
          are inventing?
          - Debashish: yes.
          
          
          Adjourned at 15:14.
          
          



Generated from PyHt script /wg/sfc/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -