Re: [sfc] Future of SFC work

[CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I also support extending the scope of the charter and continuing the work.
I'm interested in looking at how to extend SFC also to the end-terminal
devices, how to integrate SFC with RAW/DETNET and potential implications of
mobility on the control plane, just as examples.

Thanks!

Carlos

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 3:14 PM Diego R. Lopez <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> The advantage of waiting a while before expressing my opinion is the Gyan
> has perfectly done so (thanks!). I fully support his opinion about
> continuing SFC work. And I must say I have the intention to continue being
> directly involved in some work of the group, as I was in the composition
> draft or in the PoT activities.
>
>
>
> Be goode,
>
>
>
> --
>
> "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"
>
>
>
> Dr Diego R. Lopez
>
> Telefonica I+D
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/
>
>
>
> e-mail: [e-mail]
>
> Mobile:  [phone]
>
> ----------------------------------
>
>
>
> On 16/02/2022, 04:09, "sfc on behalf of Gyan Mishra" <[e-mail]
> on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Joel, Jim & all
>
>
>
> I would say that one measure of success of a WG is that when you do a
> google search, there are many scholarly articles related to SFC service
> plane benefits as well as vendor implementations that I know of personally
> with Cisco and Juniper and there maybe other vendors out there.
>
>
>
> I think the SFC WG has garnered overall interest in the technology
> industry wide and it’s importance of a service plane.
>
>
>
> Overall I would say hats off to the chairs and WG members and all the hard
> work  as to the success!!!
>
>
>
> As far as commentary and involvement in drafts, that issue exists across
> the board as I am a member of every Routing Area WG, 54 WGs in total I
> would say the interest and involvement has been as well with other WGs
> related to personal drafts being progressed by individuals so I don’t think
> it’s just an issue with SFC WG.  My observation has been that whenever
> multiple  vendors have competing solutions they want to get to WG adoption
> and progression,  those are the hot ones that have tremendous interest.
> As well there are hot topics and the hot topics with drafts that have all
> the major vendors involvement get the most feedback and of course progress
> quickly.  The key is garnering multi vendor interest and support to
> progress an idea which goes for SFC and any WG.
>
>
>
> In my mind NFV brought about the concept of the need for service chaining
> of VNF instances and now SFC has broadened the use case with NSH service
> plane beyond NFV with physical hardware endpoints and any virtualization
> model.
>
>
>
> I am in favor of expanding the scope of the WG to include in the charter
> any networking area that involves virtualization such as DC NVO
> encapsulation overlays such as VXLAN where I see Cisco and Juniper are
> providing their own on standardized methods service chaining that is SFC
> and SFC NSH independent where I think their can be tremendous benefits as
> well as when extending the fabric to the host being able to use SFC NSH
> service plane to link the SFF instances.   I think as well maybe for TEAS
> network slicing with 5G virtualization the underlay network slice and now
> incorporating SFC NSH service plane into 5G UE services network slicing NSC
> slice controller.  There  maybe as well for OTN L1VPN and CCAMP WGs maybe a
> possibility of WG charter expansion into that arena SFC NSH possible
> considerations.
>
>
>
> Spring WG Segment Routing in my mind as it’s allows the ability for
> virtualization and abstraction of the underlay with SR-TE micro flow and
> macro flow path steering and it lends itself to  be a critical component of
> TEAS network slicing, I believe that SFC NSH service plane can really take
> off in that area with a myriad of use cases across the board.  I believe
> with the advent of SR really brings to light the criticality of SFC NSH
> service plane.
>
>
>
>
>
> I would be happy to work on all existing documents being progressed that I
> am involved as well as working on any I am not involved, as well as with
> the recharger expansion, any future development new work.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 2:05 PM Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> SFC Working Group:
>
>      As part of discussing the OAM elated drafts in SFC, the chairs have
> been looking at the overall working group participation.  We note that
> very few people have spoken up about the issues being discussed.  For
> most recent drafts we have been working to advance, it has been a lot of
> work to get enough comments to justify advancement (and folks could
> argue that we did not succeed.)
>
>      We are considering various alternatives.  We could, for example,
> just close the working group.
> One possibility is to recharter the working group to expand the scope.
> There are two related questions that we would like to hear from the
> working group about this.
>
> 1) If we were to consider expanding the charter, what things would you
> like to see included in it?
>
> 2) If we do recharter will you work on the existing documents, and will
> you engage on documents other than the one or two you personally would
> like to see included?
>
> Thank you,
> Joel and Jim
>
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>
> --
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario,
> puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso
> exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el
> destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización,
> divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de
> la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos
> que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su
> destrucción.
>
> The information contained in this transmission is confidential and
> privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or
> entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the
> sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete
> it.
>
> Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário,
> pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo
> da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário
> indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou
> cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente.
> Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique
> imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>