Hi Sridar and Team,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for sharing and bringing this topic up for discussion. I would expect that the QoS abstraction exposed to the end user (for consumption) is different from the abstraction used by the admin/provider (for configuration). The details you have captured below seem to fall into the later category. Am I understanding it correctly? To elaborate a little more on this, I repurposed a document I had written earlier and have posted it here:</div>
<div><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qeoOAVXjbizwcF3lK7QFtT6NGn8WNzQbW98WSOIOi0g/edit">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qeoOAVXjbizwcF3lK7QFtT6NGn8WNzQbW98WSOIOi0g/edit</a></div><div><br></div><div>I imagined it might be relevant to this discussion and might help your proposal.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks,<br>~Sumit. </div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Sridar Kandaswamy (skandasw) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:skandasw@cisco.com" target="_blank">skandasw@cisco.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi All:<br>
<br>
Resending. Would others have interest in the area of Traffic/QoS policies ? We can try to have some discussions prior to the summit and meet up at the summit to converge towards a proposal. Henry is looking at some possibilities for queuing disciplines to add to the notes below so we can converge. We would definitely like to get a sense of what others would be interested in as well and get more folks involved.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Sridar<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Sridar Kandaswamy (skandasw)<br>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 12:28 PM<br>
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List<br>
Subject: RE: [openstack-dev] [Quantum] Summit Sessions<br>
<br>
Hi All:<br>
<br>
While rate limiting is an important aspect of QoS (Nachi - ur BP proposal and something that Henry is exploring), my colleague Dan Florea and I have been looking at some requirements for DSCP marking for end to end QoS . We would like to bring the different aspects under a single framework for Traffic Policies. We had some inputs from key partners as well, so we wanted to get it out to the community for some early feedback.<br>
<br>
Would it make sense for a solution that can address:<br>
<br>
1) Multiple types of actions (marking, rate-limit (we can get more fancy with multi queue scheduling)<br>
depending on the capabilities of the underlying datapath.<br>
2) A notion of classifiers, that can segment the traffic on a port (based on the usual suspects such as the<br>
5 tuple with masking to aggregate a block, incoming DSCP, and possibly other fields)<br>
<br>
Thus, the policy involves two components - the classifier and the action on the traffic matching the classifier.<br>
<br>
So the policy applied on a port could represent a logic as below:<br>
<br>
if traffic_class == video:<br>
mark_dscp(AF3)<br>
if traffic_class == voip:<br>
mark_dscp(EF)<br>
if traffic_class == generic_user:<br>
if bandwidth > 100000:<br>
apply_rate-limit()<br>
if traffic_class == nomatch:<br>
do_some_default_action()<br>
<br>
For the case where we want the action to be applied on all traffic on a port - not specifying a classifier can default the action on all traffic.<br>
<br>
if True:<br>
if bandwidth > 100000:<br>
apply_rate-limit()<br>
<br>
There is precedence for such a model in the switching world and this will look a lot like Quantum security groups with more options on it.<br>
<br>
Pls provide ur feedback and would also like to have an opportunity to continue the discussion at the Summit. If there is common ground we can collaborate on a BP.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Sridar<br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
A very high level stab and sense of what the CLI's could look like (this is just to give an idea of some of the fields):<br>
<br>
The Classifier (this is optional - needed only if we want to have different actions on different classes of traffic.<br>
<br>
quantum classifier-create [-h]<br>
[--request-format {json,xml}]<br>
[--tenant-id TENANT_ID]<br>
[--src-ip <ip/mask><br>
[--dst-ip <ip/mask><br>
[--src-port <port-range><br>
[--dst-port <port-range><br>
[--dscp DSCP]<br>
[--other-things-to-be-added <value>]<br>
NAME<br>
<br>
Action specifier:<br>
<br>
quantum traffic-policy-rule-create [-h]<br>
[--request-format {json,xml}]<br>
[--tenant-id TENANT_ID]<br>
[--classifier <classifier-name>]<br>
[--direction [ingress|egress]<br>
[--action <mark-dscp=<val>><br>
NAME<br>
<br>
--action can take on appropriate action keys and desired value such as:<br>
<rate-limit=100000> etc.<br>
<br>
<br>
We can also aggregate multiple rules in to a single block which can make them more manageable.<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Nachi Ueno [mailto:<a href="mailto:nachi@nttmcl.com">nachi@nttmcl.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 5:15 PM<br>
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List<br>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Quantum] Summit Sessions<br>
<br>
Hi Henry<br>
<br>
Thanks! Sounds great<br>
<br>
2013/3/28 Henry Gessau <<a href="mailto:gessau@cisco.com">gessau@cisco.com</a>>:<br>
> Hi Nachi,<br>
><br>
> Thanks for bringing this to my attention. My initial reaction is that,<br>
> yes, it should be covered by QoS. I will refer to it in my write-up<br>
> for the QoS proposal, and keep in touch with you for a potential merge.<br>
><br>
> -- Henry<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Mar 27, at 7:56 pm, Nachi Ueno <<a href="mailto:nachi@nttmcl.com">nachi@nttmcl.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Hi<br>
>><br>
>> I'm also planning to implement related feature in H.<br>
>> BP<br>
>> <a href="https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-basic-traffic-" target="_blank">https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-basic-traffic-</a><br>
>> control-on-external-gateway<br>
>><br>
>> Basically, I wanna stop exhaust of external network connection by one<br>
>> tenant<br>
>><br>
>> May be we can merge our proposals.<br>
>> Your qos api is per port based one?<br>
>><br>
>> Regards<br>
>> Nachi<br>
>><br>
>> 2013/3/27 Henry Gessau <<a href="mailto:gessau@cisco.com">gessau@cisco.com</a>>:<br>
>>> I will be adding some more details to the proposal soon.<br>
>>><br>
>>> -- Henry<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Wed, Mar 27, at 10:50 am, gong yong sheng <<a href="mailto:gongysh@linux.vnet.ibm.com">gongysh@linux.vnet.ibm.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> It will help if u can have some design before summit discuss.<br>
>>>> On 03/27/2013 10:33 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote:<br>
>>>>> I'd like to get the QoS API proposal in as well.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/160" target="_blank">http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/160</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I am currently working with Comcast, and this is a must-have<br>
>>>>> feature in Quantum.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>