Kanzhe, thanks for your response to my comments and questions. Please see below.
> From: Kanzhe Jiang <kan...@gmail.com> > [...] >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi <m...@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> [...] >> 3- For the service chain creation, I am sure there are good reasons >> for requiring a specific provider for a given chain of services but >> wouldn't it be possible to have a generic "chain" provider which >> would instantiate each service in the chain using the required >> provider for each service (e.g., firewall or loadbalancer service) >> and with setting the insertion contexts for each service such that >> the chain gets constructed as well? I am sure I am ignoring some >> practical requirements but is it worth rethinking the current approach? > Service Chaining often means a form of traffic steering. Depending > on how the steering is done, the capabilities of different providers > differ. Different provider may define different context of > individual service in the chain. For example, a bump-in-the-wire > service can be inserted as a virtual wire or L3 next hop. So it will > be hard to define a "generic" chain provider. With respect to Question 3 above, yes you are right we need possibly different providers for this generic "chain" service type. The solution could be having the "chain" as a service type itself which can be provided by different providers. Different providers can implement the instantiation of a chain differently. This is similar to the current service-chain model in that there may be different providers for a service-chain with the difference being that the service type itself is generic and not specific to a particular chain such as firewall-vpn. Best, Mohammad
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
