Re: [forces] Requesting further comments/suggestions on IETF ForCESLogical Function Block (LFB) Subsidiary Management dratf
Chuanhuang <chuanhuang_li@hotmail.com> Sat, 19 July 2014 18:46 UTC
Return-Path: <chuanhuang_li@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2DD21B29F7 for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.978
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_84=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sBGlPYqmNeKl for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU004-OMC4S19.hotmail.com (blu004-omc4s19.hotmail.com [65.55.111.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20AC71B29DF for <forces@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU436-SMTP154 ([65.55.111.136]) by BLU004-OMC4S19.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22712); Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:46:33 -0700
X-TMN: [c26ZV6XrqGQEw5mupQ1MchOp7Lb+Ydj6]
X-Originating-Email: [chuanhuang_li@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP154014B65CA71EE46B7FBA691F20@phx.gbl>
Received: from RobinLee-PC ([221.12.10.218]) by BLU436-SMTP154.smtp.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(8.0.9200.16384); Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:46:31 -0700
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 02:46:26 +0800
From: Chuanhuang <chuanhuang_li@hotmail.com>
To: "B.Khasnabish@ieee.org" <vumip1@gmail.com>, "forces@ietf.org" <forces@ietf.org>
X-mailer: Foxmail 6, 15, 201, 23 [cn]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jul 2014 18:46:31.0905 (UTC) FILETIME=[C2113510:01CFA381]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/forces/oCS7TUUxMh5IPjlOEHGAQDZxpSg
Subject: Re: [forces] Requesting further comments/suggestions on IETF ForCESLogical Function Block (LFB) Subsidiary Management dratf
X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces/>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 18:46:35 -0000
Dear Bhumip, I think this work is very meaningful, and the WG should push it forward. I have some comments: 1: This draft is mainly for the use of virtulization, and aims to standardize an LFB to support this virtulization. I think we cannot call the LFB as "FEM" directly. Because real FEM is a logical entity responsible for generic FE management tasks, generally, its functions are more abundant,such as the settings of TML protocol parameters and secure parameters. The functions of FEM are open and extensible.They are just not as you defined "The LFB is an LFB that standardizes and assists creation of NEs." So, i suggest we need rename the standard LFB as "FEVM (FE Virtulization Management) ". There is inheritance relationship between FEM LFB and FEVM LFB. 2: I think Section 3 (Potential Scenarios) should pay more attention to the FEVM role in these scenarios. For example, in Section 3.1, we need describe the FEVM role in the recovery process, rather than the recovery method by using virtulization of CEs. 3:In my thought, FEVM needn't know which VFEs are in one VNE(Virtual NE), it only need know the VFE informations in physical FEs. Is it more reasonable that CEM has the visiblity to all VNE. At the same time, The component "NE" of the LFB rename to "VNE" may be better. Yours, Chuanhuang ======== 2014-07-16 01:16:36 ======== Dear All, We are planning to release updates to the LFB Subsidiary Management draft ( http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-khs-forces-lfb-subsidiary-management/ ) very soon. Kindly let us know ASAP if you have any further comments/suggestions. Many thanks in advance. Best. Draft Authors +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Network Working Group B. Khasnabish Internet-Draft ZTE TX, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track E. Haleplidis Expires: August 14, 2014 University of Patras J. Hadi Salim Mojatatu Networks February 10, 2014 IETF ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Subsidiary Management draft-khs-forces-lfb-subsidiary-management-00.txt Abstract This document discusses ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Subsidiary Management (SM). Note that LFB SM is useful for introducing and supporting virtualization of ForCES Network Element (NE) including control Element (CE) and Forwarding Element (FE). Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on August 14, 2014. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of Khasnabish, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IETF ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management February 2014 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Use of Virtualized ForCES Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Use of Virtualized CEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Use of Virtualized FEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Potential Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Recovery from CE failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Recovery from FE failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Load Balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Scalable/Robust Service Function Chaining . . . . . . . . 6 3.5. Orchestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.6. Generic LFB Lifecycle Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.6.1. Booting a CE/FE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.6.2. Bootstrapping the Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.6.3. Runtime Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Testbed Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Reference Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. FEM Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. Frame Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2. Datatype Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.3. Metadata Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.4. FEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.4.1. Data Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.4.2. Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.4.3. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.4.4. Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. XML for FEM LFB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.1. LFB Class Names and LFB Class Identifiers . . . . . . . . 13 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
- Re: [forces] Requesting further comments/suggesti… Chuanhuang
- Re: [forces] Requesting further comments/suggesti… B.Khasnabish@ieee.org