<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>Ryan,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ok – I will let the experts weigh in on load balancing.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thoughts?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Ryan Moats <<a href="mailto:rmoats@us.ibm.com">rmoats@us.ibm.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 7:27 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>John McDowall <<a href="mailto:jmcdowall@paloaltonetworks.com">jmcdowall@paloaltonetworks.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>"<a href="mailto:discuss@openvswitch.org">discuss@openvswitch.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:discuss@openvswitch.org">discuss@openvswitch.org</a>>, OpenStack Development Mailing List <<a href="mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org">openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a>>,
Ben Pfaff <<a href="mailto:blp@ovn.org">blp@ovn.org</a>>, Justin Pettit <<a href="mailto:jpettit@ovn.org">jpettit@ovn.org</a>>, Russell Bryant <<a href="mailto:russell@ovn.org">russell@ovn.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [OVN] [networking-ovn] [networking-sfc] SFC and OVN<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p><tt>John McDowall <<a href="mailto:jmcdowall@paloaltonetworks.com">jmcdowall@paloaltonetworks.com</a>> wrote on 05/24/2016 06:33:05 PM:<br>
<br>
> From: John McDowall <<a href="mailto:jmcdowall@paloaltonetworks.com">jmcdowall@paloaltonetworks.com</a>></tt><br>
<tt>> To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS</tt><br>
<tt>> Cc: "<a href="mailto:discuss@openvswitch.org">discuss@openvswitch.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:discuss@openvswitch.org">discuss@openvswitch.org</a>>, "OpenStack
<br>
> Development Mailing List" <<a href="mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org">openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a>></tt><br>
<tt>> Date: 05/24/2016 06:33 PM</tt><br>
<tt>> Subject: Re: [OVN] [networking-ovn] [networking-sfc] SFC and OVN</tt><br>
<tt>> <br>
> Ryan,</tt><br>
<tt>> <br>
> Thanks for getting back to me and pointing me in a more OVS like <br>
> direction. What you say makes sense, let me hack something together.<br>
> I have been a little distracted getting some use cases together. The<br>
> other area is how to better map the flow-classifier I have been <br>
> thinking about it a little, but I will leave it till after we get <br>
> the chains done.</tt><br>
<tt>> <br>
> Your load-balancing comment was very interesting – I saw some <br>
> patches for load-balancing a few months ago but nothing since. It <br>
> would be great if we could align with load-balancing as that would <br>
> make a really powerful solution.</tt><br>
<tt>> <br>
> Regards</tt><br>
<tt>> <br>
> John</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>John-</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>For the load balancing, I believe that you'll want to look at</tt><br>
<tt>openvswitch's select group, as that should let you set up multiple</tt><br>
<tt>buckets for each egress port in the port pairs that make up a port</tt><br>
<tt>group.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>As I understand it, Table 0 identifies the logical port and logical</tt><br>
<tt>flow. I'm worried that this means we'll end up with separate bucket</tt><br>
<tt>rules for each ingress port of the port pairs that make up a port</tt><br>
<tt>group, leading to a cardinality product in the number of rules.</tt><br>
<tt>I'm trying to think of a way where Table 0 could identify the packet</tt><br>
<tt>as being part of a particular port group, and then I'd only need one</tt><br>
<tt>set of bucket rules to figure out the egress side. However, the</tt><br>
<tt>amount of free metadata space is limited and so before we go down</tt><br>
<tt>this path, I'm going to pull Justin, Ben and Russell in to see if</tt><br>
<tt>they buy into this idea or if they can think of an alternative.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>Ryan</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>> <br>
> From: Ryan Moats <<a href="mailto:rmoats@us.ibm.com">rmoats@us.ibm.com</a>><br>
> Date: Monday, May 23, 2016 at 9:06 PM<br>
> To: John McDowall <<a href="mailto:jmcdowall@paloaltonetworks.com">jmcdowall@paloaltonetworks.com</a>><br>
> Cc: "<a href="mailto:discuss@openvswitch.org">discuss@openvswitch.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:discuss@openvswitch.org">discuss@openvswitch.org</a>>, OpenStack
<br>
> Development Mailing List <<a href="mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org">openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a>><br>
> Subject: Re: [OVN] [networking-ovn] [networking-sfc] SFC and OVN</tt><br>
<tt>> <br>
> John McDowall <<a href="mailto:jmcdowall@paloaltonetworks.com">jmcdowall@paloaltonetworks.com</a>> wrote on 05/18/2016
<br>
> 03:55:14 PM:<br>
> <br>
> > From: John McDowall <<a href="mailto:jmcdowall@paloaltonetworks.com">jmcdowall@paloaltonetworks.com</a>><br>
> > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS<br>
> > Cc: "<a href="mailto:discuss@openvswitch.org">discuss@openvswitch.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:discuss@openvswitch.org">discuss@openvswitch.org</a>>, "OpenStack
<br>
> > Development Mailing List" <<a href="mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org">openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a>><br>
> > Date: 05/18/2016 03:55 PM<br>
> > Subject: Re: [OVN] [networking-ovn] [networking-sfc] SFC and OVN<br>
> > <br>
> > Ryan,<br>
> > <br>
> > OK all three repos and now aligned with their masters. I have done <br>
> > some simple level system tests and I can steer traffic to a single <br>
> > VNF. Note: some additional changes to networking-sfc to catch-up <br>
> > with their changes.<br>
> > <br>
> > <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_doonhammer_networking-2Dsfc&d=CwMGaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=vZ6VUDaavDpfOdPQrz1ED54jEjvAE36A8TVJroVlrOQ&m=ZdC1NSIST8Ny3PmF6eEBeU0ChJ0VAlJuN72tyMCL1O4&s=oOBgJzCqYrx5iTb6u3yy0gUvpA9x-_J4kubZWE9vFfI&e=">
https://github.com/doonhammer/networking-sfc</a> <br>
> > <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_doonhammer_networking-2Dovn&d=CwMGaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=vZ6VUDaavDpfOdPQrz1ED54jEjvAE36A8TVJroVlrOQ&m=ZdC1NSIST8Ny3PmF6eEBeU0ChJ0VAlJuN72tyMCL1O4&s=7LC6zvhd4D1hQoDgKa135EQzJkiUM83Ue2Xy0q2YYk0&e=">
https://github.com/doonhammer/networking-ovn</a><br>
> > <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_doonhammer_ovs&d=CwMGaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=vZ6VUDaavDpfOdPQrz1ED54jEjvAE36A8TVJroVlrOQ&m=ZdC1NSIST8Ny3PmF6eEBeU0ChJ0VAlJuN72tyMCL1O4&s=JCJhJiIR3oA4WAi8HYqNajibphpswDXZeCfdNfRX6A8&e=">
https://github.com/doonhammer/ovs</a> <br>
> > <br>
> > The next tasks I see are:<br>
> > <br>
> > 1. Decouple networking-sfc and networking-ovn. I am thinking that I <br>
> > will pass a nested port-chain dictionary holding port-pairs/port-<br>
> > pair-groups/flow-classifiers from networking-sfc to networking-ovn.<br>
> > 2. Align the interface between networking-ovn and ovs/ovn to match <br>
> > the nested dictionary in 1.<br>
> > 3. Modify the ovn-nb schema and ovn-northd.c to march the port-chain model.<br>
> > 4. Add ability to support chain of port-pairs<br>
> > 5. Think about flow-classifiers and how best to map them, today I <br>
> > just map the logical-port and ignore everything else.<br>
> > <br>
> > Any other suggestions/feedback?<br>
> > <br>
> > Regards<br>
> > <br>
> > John<br>
> <br>
> John-<br>
> <br>
> (Sorry for sending this twice, but I forgot that text/html is not liked<br>
> by the mailing lists ...)<br>
> <br>
> My apologies for not answering this sooner - I was giving a two day<br>
> training on Tues/Wed last week and came back to my son graduating<br>
> from HS the next day, so things have been a bit of a whirlwind here.<br>
> <br>
> Looking at the github repos, I like the idea of passing a dictionary<br>
> from networking-sfc to networking-ovn. The flow classifiers should<br>
> be relatively straightforward to map to ovs match rules (famous last<br>
> words)...<br>
> <br>
> I've probably missed an orbit here, but in the ovn-northd implementation,<br>
> I was expecting to find service chains in the egress and router pipelines<br>
> in addition to the ingress pipeline (see below for why I think a service<br>
> chain stage in the egress pipeline makes sense ...)<br>
> <br>
> Also, in the ovn-northd implementation, I'm a little disturbed to see the<br>
> ingress side of the service chain sending packets to output ports - I<br>
> think that a more scalable (and more "ovs-like" approach) would be to<br>
> match the egress side of a port pair in the chaining stage of the<br>
> ingress pipeline, with an action that set the input port register.<br>
> Then the egress pipeline would have a chaining stage where the output<br>
> port register would be set based on the ingress port of the next port<br>
> pair in the chain and the packet being punted to the proper output port<br>
> in the last table. That should automagically build your function chain<br>
> and provide the basis for bucketizing multiple ingress ports for the<br>
> next port group to support hash based load balancing.<br>
> <br>
> Does that make sense?<br>
> <br>
> Ryan</tt><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>