Re: [sfc] Figures in draft-quinn-sfc-arch-05

[Eric Gray <[e-mail]>]

HaHa, funny man.  :)

From: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 1:43 PM
To: Eric Gray; Joel Halpern; Paul Quinn (paulq)
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Figures in draft-quinn-sfc-arch-05
Importance: High

You could turn the whole picture right by 90 degrees.
If you don't like top to bottom instead of left to right, make a note that it's in landscape.

--Jakob

From: sfc [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Eric Gray
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 8:31 AM
To: Joel Halpern; Paul Quinn (paulq)
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [sfc] Figures in draft-quinn-sfc-arch-05

Paul/Joel,

                Pretty sure that Figures 5 and 6 don't actually fit the width expected for an
Internet Draft (Figure 5 is more than 80 characters wide and Figure 6 is wider still).

                Depending on how a reader tries to read the draft, this can turn complicated
illustrations into a _real_ fun time.  :)

                Also, I am unsure what the figures are trying to convey with some of "dotted
lines" crossing the service functions.  If the intent is to show that a service function is
a virtual instance hosted by some network device, perhaps this will be better shown
in a separate figure and this aspect of Figures 5 and 6 can be eliminated?

I would suggest replacing Figure 5 with a figure along the lines of:

source             +-----+                   +-----+
  |            +-->| sf2 +--+            +-->| sf4 +--+
  |            |   |     |  |            |   |     |  |
  |  +------+--+   +-----+  +-->+-----+--+   +-----+  +->+-----+
  |  | sf1  |      +-----+      | sf3 |      +-----+     | sf5 |
  +->|      +----->| sf2 +----->|     |----->| sf4 +---->|     |-+
     |      |      |     |      |     |      |     |     |     | |
     +------+--+   +-----+  +-->+-----+--+   +-----+  +->+-----+ |
               |   +-----+  |            |   +-----+  |          |
               +-->| sf2 +--+            +-->| sf4 +--+     +----+
                   |     |                   |     |        |
                   +-----+                   +-----+        V
                                                          destination

                   Figure 5: Load Balancing

(67 characters?)

                Similarly, I would suggest replacing Figure 6 with a figure along the
lines of:


   source

     |               +-----+-+                   +-----+-+

 +---+           +-->| sf2 |-|+              +-->| sf4 |-|+

 |           +---|-->|     | ||          +------>|     | ||

 |   +------+|---+   +-----+ |+-->+-----+|---+   +-----+ |+-->+-----+

 |   | sf1  ||       +-----+ +--->| sf3 ||       +-----+ +--->| sf5 |

 +-->|      +|------>| sf2 |+---->|     ||------>| sf4 |+---->|     |--+

 |   |      || +---->|     |-+    |     || +---->|     |-+    |     |  |

 |   +------+|-|-+   +-----+ |+-->+-----+|-|-+   +-----+ |+-->+-----+  |

 |           | | |   +-----+ ||          | | |   +-----+ ||            |

 |   +------++ | +-->| sf2 |-|+   +-----++ | +-->| sf4 |-|+   +-----+  |

 |   | sf1' |  | +-->|     | +--->| sf3'|  | +-->|     | +--->| sf5'|  |

 +-->|      +--+ |   +-----+----->|     |--+ |   +-----+----->|     |--+

     |      |    |                |     |    |                |     |  |

     +------+----+                +-----+----+                +-----+  |

                                                                       |

                                                              +--------+

                                                              |

                                                              V

                                                         destination



                    Figure 6: Load Balancing and HA

(72 characters?)

                In both cases, the figure has all the same connection complexity (fixed up in a few
places), but seems to be less busy.

--
Eric