Ryan, In-line
Regards John From: Ryan Moats <rmo...@us.ibm.com<mailto:rmo...@us.ibm.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 9:42 PM To: John McDowall <jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com<mailto:jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com>> Cc: Na Zhu <na...@cn.ibm.com<mailto:na...@cn.ibm.com>>, Srilatha Tangirala <srila...@us.ibm.com<mailto:srila...@us.ibm.com>>, "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-...@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.org>>, discuss <discuss@openvswitch.org<mailto:discuss@openvswitch.org>> Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] [openstack-dev] [OVN] [networking-ovn] [networking-sfc] SFC andOVN "discuss" <discuss-boun...@openvswitch.org<mailto:discuss-boun...@openvswitch.org>> wrote on 06/14/2016 10:31:40 PM: > From: John McDowall > <jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com<mailto:jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com>> > To: Na Zhu <na...@cn.ibm.com<mailto:na...@cn.ibm.com>> > Cc: Srilatha Tangirala/San Francisco/IBM@IBMUS, "OpenStack > Development Mailing List \(not for usage questions\)" <openstack- > d...@lists.openstack.org<mailto:d...@lists.openstack.org>>, discuss > <discuss@openvswitch.org<mailto:discuss@openvswitch.org>> > Date: 06/14/2016 10:48 PM > Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] [openstack-dev] [OVN] [networking-ovn] > [networking-sfc] SFC andOVN > Sent by: "discuss" > <discuss-boun...@openvswitch.org<mailto:discuss-boun...@openvswitch.org>> > > Juno, > > It is a container for port-pair-groups and flow-classifier. I > imagine there could be more the than one port-chain per switch. Also > we may want to extend the model beyond a single lswitch I agree that there could be more than one port-chain per switch, determined by the flow classifier. What I'm confused by is: 1. Why are items only recorded in logical switches? I would think that I could also attach an SFC to a logical router - although I admit that the current neutron model for ports doesn't really allow that easily. Couple that with the change of name from Logical_Port to Logical_Switch_Port, and I'm left wondering if we aren't better off with the following "weak" links instead: -the Port_Chain includes the logical switch as an external_id -each Port_Pair_Group includes the Port_Chain as an external_id -each Port_Pair includes the PPG as an external_id -each Logical_Switch_Port includes the PP as an external_id I *think* that *might* allow me (in the future) to attach a port chain to a logical router by setting the logical router as an external_id and using Logical_Router_Ports to make up the PPs... JED> If there are "port-chain" tables for switches and routers I think I agree. Not sure how this is impacted by the type of VNF (see the last email to Juno). I struggle a bit with imagining the flows. 2. I still don't see what Logical_Flow_Classifier is buying me that ACL doesn't - I can codify all of the classifiers given in the match criteria of an ACL entry and codify the first PPG of the SFC as the action of the ACL entry... JED> Flow classifiers do map to an ACL entry - just need additional metadata, I.e. Action of the ACL and wether the rules should be uni or bi-directional. Though that information could be in the port-chain. Ryan
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
