Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement-02

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

From: [e-mail]<[e-mail]>
To: Jerome Moisand<[e-mail]>,[e-mail]<[e-mail]>,[e-mail]<[e-mail]>,[e-mail]<[e-mail]>,Cathy Zhang<[e-mail]>,[e-mail]<[e-mail]>,[e-mail]<[e-mail]>
cc: [e-mail]<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014
Subject: RE: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement-02








 
 
 



From: sfc [mailto:[e-mail]]
On Behalf Of [e-mail]





 

To avoid further confusion, should we refer to the selection of a service instance as "service distribution" instead of "load balancing" to clearly
 differentiate this from the "load balancer" service?
 
[Linda] Do flows go through “Service Distribution Point” before going to individual instances? If the service chain path identify
 the individual instances, then the “service distribution” is more like “manager” role, i.e. the data flows don’t go through the “Service Distribution” point.

 
Linda


 







Sure, whatever.  My point is to use the term "load balance" to refer to a service in the chain and not use the term when referring to multiple instances of a service in the chain (of which there are a number of implementation methods).
fwiw, you could comprise a service chain of all load-balancer services and let each of those distribute flows to the instances, such that the chain itself appears quite simple (LB1-LB2-LB3), hiding the fact that LB1 is a fwlb and lb2 is a natlb, etc.  But that, of course, is lunacy and still leaves open the question, "What if we want to balance the balancers?"