Hi,
thanks for the info. In any case if this gets done sooner or later SFC
will follow SFC RFC 7655 [1], won't it?
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
|sf2| |sf2| |sf3| |sf3| |sf4| |sf4|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| | | | | |
+-----+-----+ +-----+-----+
| |
+ +
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
source+-->|sff1|+-->|sff2|+--->|sff3|+--->|sff4|+-->|sff5|+-->destination
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
+ + +
| | |
+---+ +---+ +---+
|sf1| |sf3| |sf5|
+---+ +---+ +---+
Figure 5: Load Balancing
That is, the same service function (sf3) can be attached to different
sffs and the traffic will be steered directly to each one. E.g. if a
packet needs to reach sf3 it will be sent directly to sff4 and not go
through sff2 or sff3, correct?
My impression is that it should be possible to add more SFs dynamically
to a service chain (and not losing traffic). E.g. add another sf3
instance while traffic is already going through the service chain.
I foresee this could be a big impact for development, 1 single
experienced developer could take 2-3 months at least ¿opinions?
I'll try to be at the weekly call next Wednesday if possible.
Thanks,
Best Regards,
Miguel Ángel.
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7665
On 07/07/17 12:43, Brady Johnson wrote:
Peri,
There is indeed the concept of a Service Function Groups data model
and a corresponding listener in the code base, but that code is way
out of date. There never was a CSIT implemented for the functionality.
It was implemented in Lithium and hasnt been maintained since. The
original authors havent been heard from since Lithium. So effectively
its dead code that should be removed. Also, as you mention, the SF
Group was only on one SFF, which isnt an effective fail over nor load
balancing design.
The main idea the Ericsson folks had for Load Balancing Service
Functions was to use the Logical SFF to Load Balance across Service
Functions that are located on different OVS bridges. Im sure if you
ask internally, you can find the related studies and documents, since
those were never published to the community.
I dont have the resources to do this currently nor for Oxygen, and its
out of scope for Nitrogen. If you're interested in moving this forward
in the future, let us know and we can discuss it in a weekly call.
Regards,
Brady
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 7:54 AM Periyasamy Palanisamy
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Brady,
I would like to understand the gaps in implementing
LB/FF/Replication across service functions for netvirt classifiers.
Looks like this is being realized using service-function-group by
associating it with SFP (or) RSP.
In fact there is an event listener for service-function-group
which programs the group on a particular SFF (right now sfg is
supported with only one sff) .
I think we need to address the following:
1. SF can be attached to any SFFs and corresponding groups should
get programmed in all SFFs in which RSP footprint is present.
2. Honor service-function-group-name in RSP so that SFC OF
pipeline can be programmed to make use these groups for packet
steering.
Please let us know your thoughts about taking it forward.
Thanks,
Periyasamy
*From:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of
*Brady Johnson
*Sent:* Thursday, July 06, 2017 12:59 AM
*To:* Miguel Gonzalez <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [sfc-dev] Load Balancing
Miguel,
At one point the folks from Ericsson had plans for load balancing
across service functions once the logical service function
forwarder was implemented.
They are no longer contributing to SFC, so I don't know of any
concrete plans to implement a load balancer.
Regards,
Brady
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017, 16:18 Miguel Gonzalez
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I would like to ask about status and plans for having load
balancers
in a service chain. I have heard this was somehow in the
roadmap but has
been put on hold.
Will it support dynamic scaling of the Service Functions allocated
withing a group? I mean "scaling out": increasing the number
of service
functions in the cluster without losing traffic within the
service chain?
Thanks,
Miguel.
*** Please note that this message and any attachments may
contain confidential and proprietary material and information
and are intended only for the use of the intended
recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and any
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
email in error, please immediately notify the sender and
destroy this e-mail and any attachments and all copies,
whether electronic or printed. Please also note that any
views, opinions, conclusions or commitments expressed in this
message are those of the individual sender and do not
necessarily reflect the views of Fortinet, Inc., its
affiliates, and emails are not binding on Fortinet and only a
writing manually signed by Fortinet's General Counsel can be a
binding commitment of Fortinet to Fortinet's customers or
partners. Thank you. ***
_______________________________________________
sfc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc-dev
_______________________________________________
sfc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc-dev
