IETF Logo Mail Archive

[nvo3] LISP and Service chaining [ was Re: LISP control plane input into gap analysis draft]

"Yves Hertoghs (yhertogh)" <yhertogh@cisco.com> Mon, 04 November 2013 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <yhertogh@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1034F21E80E0 for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:36:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.597, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4pCoviCGQ6dV for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:36:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A032821E805D for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:36:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1311; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383604596; x=1384814196; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=5Cz3yZooxgEB3kNcNvh7w1rsdxcfRTdbOQVqz3VHhcg=; b=VdMgKpR8wd/dpkZJB2FcOYfU3bBw2WydOQdgVQIoVAOqs9G1BjoD6oo1 jRDSIBBcku0FWg8MxZUO4GvTu4+3pWDNbo6nmf1pSB3Dv/32zbhz0Ue0Z 2jHRZ4iIh25STIQ5wMgVSCIkVWD8svPll0vyO8mCV6DNCySSiM4TaEyUC s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhIFABwheFKtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U78/gScWdIIlAQEBAwEBAQE3KwkLEgE+MQYLJQIEAQ0FG4dUAwkGDbRODYlrjGiCcAeELgOWH4FrgS+JJoF9hTeBaIE+gio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,635,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="280603478"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2013 22:36:36 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA4Maa5k015533 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 22:36:36 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.4.234]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:36:35 -0600
From: "Yves Hertoghs (yhertogh)" <yhertogh@cisco.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, Lucy Yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: LISP and Service chaining [ was Re: [nvo3] LISP control plane input into gap analysis draft]
Thread-Index: AQHO2a5RNHs3oimbbkyPrUaNMeLkEw==
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 22:36:35 +0000
Message-ID: <CE9DDE7D.26B08%yhertogh@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <EE890F7E-FE5A-4ABA-864D-D180060E64D3@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913
x-originating-ip: [10.21.122.36]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <744A4AAACC9DF14292F9DCED2EB1B54D@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com>, "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-nvo3-gap-analysis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-nvo3-gap-analysis@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [nvo3] LISP and Service chaining [ was Re: LISP control plane input into gap analysis draft]
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Network Virtualization Overlays \(NVO3\) Working Group" <nvo3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3>
List-Post: <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 22:36:42 -0000

I agree that LISP has built in service chaining support through using LISP
RTRs as described by Dino.

But there are other, protocol independent ways of achieving the same
behaviour, see the work being presented at the SFC BOF
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/88/agenda/sfc/

Yves



On 04/11/13 23:00, "Dino Farinacci" <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Could someone explain to me how to use LISP solution to provide route
>>path control? For example, in a VN, ingress NVE MUST forward the packets
>>to another NVE at which a tenant system runs firewall software. The
>>second NVE then forwards to the packets to the third NVE where an
>>attached TS has the address that matches the destination address in the
>>inner address on the packets.
>>  
>> Lucy
>
>LISP has a decapsaltor/encasulator component called an RTR. An RTR can
>give you suboptimal paths by choice if you want to route around failures,
>congestion points, or use policy paths. You can find details in
>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farinacci-lisp-te.
>
>But yes, you can have an RTR co-located with a firewall, laod-balancer,
>and NAT type middle devices.
>
>Dino
>
>_______________________________________________
>nvo3 mailing list
>nvo3@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email