John McDowall <jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com> wrote on 05/26/2016 11:08:43 AM:
> From: John McDowall <jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com> > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org>, "discuss@openvswitch.org" > <discuss@openvswitch.org>, Justin Pettit <jpet...@ovn.org>, > "OpenStack Development Mailing List" <openstack- > d...@lists.openstack.org>, Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> > Date: 05/26/2016 11:09 AM > Subject: Re: [OVN] [networking-ovn] [networking-sfc] SFC and OVN > > Ryan, > > My (incomplete) throughts about the flow-classifier are: > > 1) ACL’s are more about denying access, while the flow classifier > is more about steering selected traffic to a path, so we would need > to deny-all except allowed flows. > 2) The networking-sfc team has done a nice job with the drivers so > ovn has its own flow-classifier driver which allows us to align the > flow-classifier with the matches supported in ovs/ovn, which could > be an advantage. The ACL table has a very simple flow-classifier structure and I'd like to see if that can be re-used for the purpose of the SFC classifier (read that I feel the Logical_Flow_Classifier table is too complex). My initial thoughts were to look at extending the action column and using the external-ids field to differentiate between legacy ACLs and those that are used to intercept traffic and route it to an SFC. > > What were your thoughts on the schema it adds a lot of tables and a > lot of commands – cannot think of anyway around it In this case, I think that the other tables are reasonable and I'm uncomfortable trying to stretch the existing tables to cover that information... Ryan > > Regards > > John > > From: Ryan Moats <rmo...@us.ibm.com> > Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 9:12 PM > To: John McDowall <jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com> > Cc: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org>, "discuss@openvswitch.org" < > discuss@openvswitch.org>, Justin Pettit <jpet...@ovn.org>, OpenStack > Development Mailing List <openstack-...@lists.openstack.org>, Russell Bryant < > russ...@ovn.org> > Subject: Re: [OVN] [networking-ovn] [networking-sfc] SFC and OVN > > John McDowall <jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com> wrote on 05/25/2016 > 07:27:46 PM: > > > From: John McDowall <jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com> > > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > > Cc: "discuss@openvswitch.org" <discuss@openvswitch.org>, "OpenStack > > Development Mailing List" <openstack-...@lists.openstack.org>, Ben > > Pfaff <b...@ovn.org>, Justin Pettit <jpet...@ovn.org>, Russell Bryant > > <russ...@ovn.org> > > Date: 05/25/2016 07:28 PM > > Subject: Re: [OVN] [networking-ovn] [networking-sfc] SFC and OVN > > > > Ryan, > > > > Ok – I will let the experts weigh in on load balancing. > > > > In the meantime I have attached a couple of files to show where I am > > going. The first is sfc_dict.py and is a representation of the dict > > I am passing from SFC to OVN. This will then translate to the > > attached ovn-nb schema file. > > > > One of my concerns is that SFC almost doubles the size of the ovn-nb > > schema but I could not think of any other way of doing it. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > John > > The dictionary looks fine for a starting point, and the more I look > at the classifier, the more I wonder if we can't do something with > the current ACL table to avoid duplication in the NB database > definition... > > Ryan > > > From: Ryan Moats <rmo...@us.ibm.com> > > Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 7:27 AM > > To: John McDowall <jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com> > > Cc: "discuss@openvswitch.org" <discuss@openvswitch.org>, OpenStack > > Development Mailing List <openstack-...@lists.openstack.org>, Ben Pfaff < > > b...@ovn.org>, Justin Pettit <jpet...@ovn.org>, Russell Bryant < > russ...@ovn.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [OVN] [networking-ovn] [networking-sfc] SFC and OVN > > > > John McDowall <jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com> wrote on 05/24/2016 > > 06:33:05 PM: > > > > > From: John McDowall <jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com> > > > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > > > Cc: "discuss@openvswitch.org" <discuss@openvswitch.org>, "OpenStack > > > Development Mailing List" <openstack-...@lists.openstack.org> > > > Date: 05/24/2016 06:33 PM > > > Subject: Re: [OVN] [networking-ovn] [networking-sfc] SFC and OVN > > > > > > Ryan, > > > > > > Thanks for getting back to me and pointing me in a more OVS like > > > direction. What you say makes sense, let me hack something together. > > > I have been a little distracted getting some use cases together. The > > > other area is how to better map the flow-classifier I have been > > > thinking about it a little, but I will leave it till after we get > > > the chains done. > > > > > > Your load-balancing comment was very interesting – I saw some > > > patches for load-balancing a few months ago but nothing since. It > > > would be great if we could align with load-balancing as that would > > > make a really powerful solution. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > John > > > > John- > > > > For the load balancing, I believe that you'll want to look at > > openvswitch's select group, as that should let you set up multiple > > buckets for each egress port in the port pairs that make up a port > > group. > > > > As I understand it, Table 0 identifies the logical port and logical > > flow. I'm worried that this means we'll end up with separate bucket > > rules for each ingress port of the port pairs that make up a port > > group, leading to a cardinality product in the number of rules. > > I'm trying to think of a way where Table 0 could identify the packet > > as being part of a particular port group, and then I'd only need one > > set of bucket rules to figure out the egress side. However, the > > amount of free metadata space is limited and so before we go down > > this path, I'm going to pull Justin, Ben and Russell in to see if > > they buy into this idea or if they can think of an alternative. > > > > Ryan > > > > > > > > From: Ryan Moats <rmo...@us.ibm.com> > > > Date: Monday, May 23, 2016 at 9:06 PM > > > To: John McDowall <jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com> > > > Cc: "discuss@openvswitch.org" <discuss@openvswitch.org>, OpenStack > > > Development Mailing List <openstack-...@lists.openstack.org> > > > Subject: Re: [OVN] [networking-ovn] [networking-sfc] SFC and OVN > > > > > > John McDowall <jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com> wrote on 05/18/2016 > > > 03:55:14 PM: > > > > > > > From: John McDowall <jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com> > > > > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > > > > Cc: "discuss@openvswitch.org" <discuss@openvswitch.org>, "OpenStack > > > > Development Mailing List" <openstack-...@lists.openstack.org> > > > > Date: 05/18/2016 03:55 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [OVN] [networking-ovn] [networking-sfc] SFC and OVN > > > > > > > > Ryan, > > > > > > > > OK all three repos and now aligned with their masters. I have done > > > > some simple level system tests and I can steer traffic to a single > > > > VNF. Note: some additional changes to networking-sfc to catch-up > > > > with their changes. > > > > > > > > https://github.com/doonhammer/networking-sfc > > > > https://github.com/doonhammer/networking-ovn > > > > https://github.com/doonhammer/ovs > > > > > > > > The next tasks I see are: > > > > > > > > 1. Decouple networking-sfc and networking-ovn. I am thinking that I > > > > will pass a nested port-chain dictionary holding port-pairs/port- > > > > pair-groups/flow-classifiers from networking-sfc to networking-ovn. > > > > 2. Align the interface between networking-ovn and ovs/ovn to match > > > > the nested dictionary in 1. > > > > 3. Modify the ovn-nb schema and ovn-northd.c to march the port- > > chain model. > > > > 4. Add ability to support chain of port-pairs > > > > 5. Think about flow-classifiers and how best to map them, today I > > > > just map the logical-port and ignore everything else. > > > > > > > > Any other suggestions/feedback? > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > John- > > > > > > (Sorry for sending this twice, but I forgot that text/html is not liked > > > by the mailing lists ...) > > > > > > My apologies for not answering this sooner - I was giving a two day > > > training on Tues/Wed last week and came back to my son graduating > > > from HS the next day, so things have been a bit of a whirlwind here. > > > > > > Looking at the github repos, I like the idea of passing a dictionary > > > from networking-sfc to networking-ovn. The flow classifiers should > > > be relatively straightforward to map to ovs match rules (famous last > > > words)... > > > > > > I've probably missed an orbit here, but in the ovn-northd implementation, > > > I was expecting to find service chains in the egress and router pipelines > > > in addition to the ingress pipeline (see below for why I think a service > > > chain stage in the egress pipeline makes sense ...) > > > > > > Also, in the ovn-northd implementation, I'm a little disturbed to see the > > > ingress side of the service chain sending packets to output ports - I > > > think that a more scalable (and more "ovs-like" approach) would be to > > > match the egress side of a port pair in the chaining stage of the > > > ingress pipeline, with an action that set the input port register. > > > Then the egress pipeline would have a chaining stage where the output > > > port register would be set based on the ingress port of the next port > > > pair in the chain and the packet being punted to the proper output port > > > in the last table. That should automagically build your function chain > > > and provide the basis for bucketizing multiple ingress ports for the > > > next port group to support hash based load balancing. > > > > > > Does that make sense? > > > > > > Ryan[attachment "ovn-nb.ovsschema.sfc" deleted by Ryan Moats/ > > Omaha/IBM] [attachment "sfc_dict.py" deleted by Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM]
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
