Hi Xiaohu,
On 11/6/14 10:19 PM, "Xuxiaohu" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Meta-Data: I probably missed some discussions (sorry!) but what data >> > would this be? >> >> As I tried to clarify in my response to Tom the meta-data discussion in >>the IETF >> was mostly about vendor-specific service meta-data, but perhaps this >>term is >> being used for more general extensibility? >> >> I think there should be ways to add better assurance (checksum, keyed >> hashes) for the NVO3 header. But perhaps that can be in fixed fields in >>a fixed >> length header. >> >> In terms of the overall architecture there is a desire to carry some >>service >> meta-data with frames. The sfc WG is thinking about doing that using a >>separate >> NSH header. > >The NSH header pursued in the SFC WG contains not only metadata but also >service function chain/path info. I wonder whether the SFC is the only >application scenario of metadata. If no, it seems better to decouple >metadata and the SFC/SFP info. > >Best regards, >Xiaohu draft-quinn-sfc-nsh-03 made it possible to use NSH for applications beyond SFC by adding a MD Type (MD=Metadata) field (one MD Type is allocated for SFC). This opens the door to allow NSH to carry extensions to the Network Virtualization layer beyond what is built into the base header that all implementations must support, such as a virtual network ID and OAM flag. - Larry > >_______________________________________________ >nvo3 mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
