Miguel, I don't think that RFC was taken into consideration in the original design, and I'm not familiar with it. But, everything you propose sound very reasonable.
I doubt I'll be able to host next week's meeting, but I'll send an email the day before. Regards, Brady On Fri, Jul 7, 2017, 19:11 Miguel Angel Muñoz <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 corresponding listener in the code base, but that code is way out of date.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]> 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]] *On Behalf Of *Brady Johnson >> *Sent:* Thursday, July 06, 2017 12:59 AM >> *To:* Miguel Gonzalez <[email protected]>; >> [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]> >> 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] >> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc-dev >> >> >
_______________________________________________ sfc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc-dev
