Ryan, See inline
Regards John From: Ryan Moats <rmo...@us.ibm.com<mailto:rmo...@us.ibm.com>> Date: Friday, June 17, 2016 at 7:26 AM To: John McDowall <jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com<mailto:jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com>> Cc: discuss <discuss@openvswitch.org<mailto:discuss@openvswitch.org>>, Na Zhu <na...@cn.ibm.com<mailto:na...@cn.ibm.com>>, "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-...@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-...@lists.openstack.org>>, Srilatha Tangirala <srila...@us.ibm.com<mailto:srila...@us.ibm.com>> Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] [openstack-dev] [OVN] [networking-ovn] [networking-sfc] SFC andOVN Apologies for being delayed on replying and in-line back as well Ryan John McDowall <jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com<mailto:jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com>> wrote on 06/15/2016 05:58:35 PM: > From: John McDowall > <jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com<mailto:jmcdow...@paloaltonetworks.com>> > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: Na Zhu <na...@cn.ibm.com<mailto:na...@cn.ibm.com>>, Srilatha > Tangirala/San Francisco/ > IBM@IBMUS, "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>> > Date: 06/15/2016 05:58 PM > Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] [openstack-dev] [OVN] [networking-ovn] > [networking-sfc] SFC andOVN > > 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. RM> Back in the day when we discussed this internally here, SFCs could RM> be inserted as BiW (which we do a good job with currently) and at RM> network boundaries (which I'm not sure how I could do with the RM> current model) - my router question is more one of leaving the RM> door open for the boundary case (sorry for the pun) in the future. JED> Lets leave the door open and see what we can do once we have the basic model working? > 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. RM> yes and I see the action field of the ACL table being extended RM> to include "enter port chain <blah>" to cover that metadata. RM> Why couldn't bidirectional Flow Classifiers at SFC just be RM> implemented as a pair of uni-directional ACLs in the NB DB? RM> I'll back off on this point if I can see an example of an flow RM> classifier that can't be made to fit in the ACL table, but to RM> date, I've not been able to construct such a beast. JED> I would actually go a little further, the requirement on the flow-classifier is that JED> matches are supported by the switch/router. So the matches supported by the switch define the scope JED> of the flow-classifier. If I set the action of the ACL (defined by the flow-classifier) to send traffic the first port-pair Input port – would that work?
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
