<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Hi,<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> Moving definition of SF from port-pair to port-pair-group looks good. <br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> TAP is also an insertion mode like L2/L3 but since it simplifies to keep 'tap-enabled' field also in port-pair-group, so it should be fine from implementation point of view (Note - TAP SFs do not forward packet). TAP enabled and L2/L3 insertion mode should be mutually exclusive. <br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> According to IETF draft NSH can classify & forward traffic (correct ?) but then the draft assumes uniformity of working of devices (which IMHO refers L3) which doesn't cover the entire use case. Can insertion mode (L2/L3) & traffic encapsulation(NSH) co-exist also ? <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br> <br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Cathy Zhang <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Cathy.H.Zhang@huawei.com" target="_blank">Cathy.H.Zhang@huawei.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_8735276103575523103m_-4542994552255199751WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Hi Igor,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Moving the correlation from port-pair to port-pair-group makes sense. In the future I think we should add all new attributes for a SF to port-pair-group-param.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">But I think L2/L3 is different from encap type NSH or MPLS. An L3 type SF can support either NSH or MPLS. I would suggest the following:<u></u><u></u></span></p><span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">port-pair-group (port-pair-group-params):<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> insertion-mode:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - L2<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - L3 (default)<u></u><u></u></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> Correlation: <u></u><u></u></p><span>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - MPLS<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - NSH<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> tap-enabled:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - False (default)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - True<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Thanks,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Cathy<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Duarte Cardoso, Igor [mailto:<a href="mailto:igor.duarte.cardoso@intel.com" target="_blank">igor.duarte.cardoso@in<wbr>tel.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 20, 2017 8:02 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [openstack-dev] [networking-sfc] About insertion modes and SFC Encapsulation<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div><div><div class="m_8735276103575523103h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi networking-sfc,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At the latest IRC meeting [1] it was agreed to split TAP from the possible insertion modes (initial spec version [2]).<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here are my thoughts, let me know yours:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="m_8735276103575523103m_-4542994552255199751MsoListParagraph">1.<span style="font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">
</span>My expectation for future PP and PPG if TAP+insertion modes go ahead and nothing else changes (only relevant details outlined):<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">port-pair (service-function-params):<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> correlation:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - MPLS<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - None (default)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">port-pair-group (port-pair-group-params):<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> insertion-mode:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - L2<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - L3 (default)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> tap-enabled:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - False (default)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - True<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="m_8735276103575523103m_-4542994552255199751MsoListParagraph">2.<span style="font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">
</span>What I propose for future PP and PPG (only relevant details outlined):<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">port-pair (service-function-params):<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <remove correlation – reasons outlined in [3] and below><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">port-pair-group (port-pair-group-params):<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> mode:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - L2<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - L3 (default)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - MPLS<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - NSH<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> tap-enabled:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - False (default)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <wbr> - True<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">With what’s proposed in 2.:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">- every combination will be possible with no clashes and no validation required.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">- port-pair-groups will always group “homogeneous” sets of port-pairs, making load-balacing and next-hop processing simpler and consistent.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">- 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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">Are there any use cases for having next-hop SF candidates (individual port-pairs) supporting different SFC Encapsulation protocols?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">I understand, however, that removing correlation from port-pairs might not be ideal given that it’s a subtractive API change.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">[1] <a href="http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/service_chaining/2017/service_chaining.2017-03-16-17.02.html" target="_blank">
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org<wbr>/meetings/service_chaining/201<wbr>7/service_chaining.2017-03-16-<wbr>17.02.html</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">[2] <a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/442195/" target="_blank">
https://review.openstack.org/#<wbr>/c/442195/</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">[3] <a href="https://github.com/openstack/networking-sfc/blob/17c537b35d41a3e1fd80da790ae668e52cea6b88/doc/source/system_design%20and_workflow.rst#usage" target="_blank">
https://github.com/openstack/n<wbr>etworking-sfc/blob/17c537b35d4<wbr>1a3e1fd80da790ae668e52cea6b88/<wbr>doc/source/system_design%<wbr>20and_workflow.rst#usage</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">Igor.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>______________________________<wbr>______________<br>
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev-request@lists.op<wbr>enstack.org?subject:unsubscrib<wbr>e</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi<wbr>-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstac<wbr>k-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="m_8735276103575523103gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif">Regards,<br></span></div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif">Vikash</span><br></div></div>
</div></div>