Hi Keshava,

Please find my answer inline…

From: A, Keshava [mailto:keshav...@hp.com]
Sent: 22 December 2014 20:10
To: Vikram Choudhary; Murali B
Cc: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org; yuriy.babe...@telekom.de; 
stephen.kf.w...@gmail.com; Dhruv Dhody; Dongfeng (C); Kalyankumar Asangi; A, 
Subject: RE: Our idea for SFC using OpenFlow. RE: [openstack-dev] [NFV][Telco] 
Service VM v/s its basic framework


1.       In this solution it is assumed that all the OpenStack services are 
available/enabled on all the CNs ?

Vikram: The SFC NB API should be independent of where the advanced services are 
deployed, the API should infact hide this information by design.

In the BP, we have proposed an idea of service pool which will be populated by 
the user with their respective advance service instance/s. Our solution will 
just try to find out the best service instance to be used and dictate the flow 
path which the data traffic needs to follow for accomplishing SFC.

Let’s say the service pool contains 2 LB and 2 FW services and the user want a 
SFC as LB->FW. In such scenario a flow rule mentioning the details about LB and 
FW instance with flow path details will be downloaded to the OVS.

Please note the details about the advanced services (like IP details i.e. where 
the service is running and etc) will be fetched from the neutron db.

2.       Consider a  scenario: For a particular Tennant traffic  the  flows are 
chained across a set of CNs .

Then if one of the  VM (of that Tennant) migrates to a new CN, where that 
Tennant was not there earlier on that CN, what will be the impact ?

How to control the chaining of flows in these kind of scenario ? so that packet 
will reach that Tennant VM on new CN ?

Vikram: If the deployment of advanced services change, the neutron db would be 
updated and corresponding actions (selection of advance service instance and 
corresponding change in OVS dataflow would be done). This is hidden to the user.

Here this Tennant VM be a NFV Service-VM (which should be transparent to 


From: Vikram Choudhary [mailto:vikram.choudh...@huawei.com]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 12:28 PM
To: Murali B
yuriy.babe...@telekom.de<mailto:yuriy.babe...@telekom.de>; A, Keshava; 
stephen.kf.w...@gmail.com<mailto:stephen.kf.w...@gmail.com>; Dhruv Dhody; 
Dongfeng (C); Kalyankumar Asangi
Subject: RE: Our idea for SFC using OpenFlow. RE: [openstack-dev] [NFV][Telco] 
Service VM v/s its basic framework

Sorry for the incontinence. We will sort the issue at the earliest.
Please find the BP attached with the mail!!!

From: Murali B [mailto:mbi...@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 December 2014 12:20
To: Vikram Choudhary
stephen.kf.w...@gmail.com<mailto:stephen.kf.w...@gmail.com>; Dhruv Dhody; 
Dongfeng (C); Kalyankumar Asangi
Subject: Re: Our idea for SFC using OpenFlow. RE: [openstack-dev] [NFV][Telco] 
Service VM v/s its basic framework

Thank you Vikram,

Could you or somebody please provide the access the full specification document


On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Vikram Choudhary 
<vikram.choudh...@huawei.com<mailto:vikram.choudh...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi Murali,

We have proposed service function chaining idea using open flow.

Will submit the same for review soon.


From: yuriy.babe...@telekom.de<mailto:yuriy.babe...@telekom.de> 
Sent: 18 December 2014 19:35
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [NFV][Telco] Service VM v/s its basic framework

in the IRC meeting yesterday we agreed to work on the use-case for service 
function chaining as it seems to be important for a lot of participants [1].
We will prepare the first draft and share it in the TelcoWG Wiki for discussion.

There is one blueprint in openstack on that in [2]


Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Yuriy Babenko

Von: A, Keshava [mailto:keshav...@hp.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Dezember 2014 19:06
An: stephen.kf.w...@gmail.com<mailto:stephen.kf.w...@gmail.com>; OpenStack 
Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Betreff: Re: [openstack-dev] [NFV][Telco] Service VM v/s its basic framework

Hi Murali,

There are many unknows w.r.t ‘Service-VM’ and how it should from NFV 
In my opinion it was not decided how the Service-VM framework should be.
Depending on this we at OpenStack also will have impact for ‘Service Chaining’.
Please find the mail attached w.r.t that discussion with NFV for ‘Service-VM + 
Openstack OVS related discussion”.


From: Stephen Wong [mailto:stephen.kf.w...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:03 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [NFV][Telco] Service VM v/s its basic framework

Hi Murali,

    There is already a ServiceVM project (Tacker), currently under development 
on stackforge:


    If you are interested in this topic, please take a look at the wiki page 
above and see if the project's goals align with yours. If so, you are certainly 
welcome to join the IRC meeting and start to contribute to the project's 
direction and design.

- Stephen

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Murali B 
<mbi...@gmail.com<mailto:mbi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi keshava,

We would like contribute towards service chain and NFV

Could you please share the document if you have any related to service VM

The service chain can be achieved if we able to redirect the traffic to service 
VM using ovs-flows

in this case we no need to have routing enable on the service VM(traffic is 
redirected at L2).

All the tenant VM's in cloud could use this service VM services  by adding the 
ovs-rules in OVS


OpenStack-dev mailing list

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to