Igor, Inline. - Louis
From: Duarte Cardoso, Igor [mailto:igor.duarte.card...@intel.com] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 8:02 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [networking-sfc] About insertion modes and SFC Encapsulation Hi networking-sfc, At the latest IRC meeting [1] it was agreed to split TAP from the possible insertion modes (initial spec version [2]). I took the ARs to propose coexistence of insertion modes, correlation and (now) a new tap-enabled attribute, and send this email about possible directions. Here are my thoughts, let me know yours: 1. My expectation for future PP and PPG if TAP+insertion modes go ahead and nothing else changes (only relevant details outlined): port-pair (service-function-params): correlation: - MPLS - None (default) port-pair-group (port-pair-group-params): insertion-mode: - L2 - L3 (default) tap-enabled: - False (default) - True 2. What I propose for future PP and PPG (only relevant details outlined): port-pair (service-function-params): <remove correlation - reasons outlined in [3] and below> port-pair-group (port-pair-group-params): mode: - L2 - L3 (default) - MPLS - NSH tap-enabled: - False (default) - True With what's proposed in 2.: - every combination will be possible with no clashes and no validation required. - port-pair-groups will always group "homogeneous" sets of port-pairs, making load-balacing and next-hop processing simpler and consistent. - the "forwarding" details of a Service Function are no longer dictated both by port-pair and port-pair-group, but rather only by port-pair-group. LF: agree, it appears that L2, L3, MPLS, NSH are mutually exclusive. Agree on tap-enabled. Are there any use cases for having next-hop SF candidates (individual port-pairs) supporting different SFC Encapsulation protocols? I understand, however, that removing correlation from port-pairs might not be ideal given that it's a subtractive API change. [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/service_chaining/2017/service_chaining.2017-03-16-17.02.html [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/442195/ [3] https://github.com/openstack/networking-sfc/blob/17c537b35d41a3e1fd80da790ae668e52cea6b88/doc/source/system_design%20and_workflow.rst#usage Best regards, Igor.
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
