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

Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> Thu, 29 May 2014 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC211A0676 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 May 2014 14:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 RLYcmttL95y4 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 May 2014 14:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA2AC1A0246 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2014 14:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BER47985; Thu, 29 May 2014 21:42:18 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 29 May 2014 22:41:42 +0100
Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.225) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 29 May 2014 22:42:17 +0100
Received: from DFWEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.64]) by dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.4]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 29 May 2014 14:42:07 -0700
From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
To: Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com>, Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com>, "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>, Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>, "Paul Quinn (paulq)" <paulq@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: Figures in draft-quinn-sfc-arch-05
Thread-Index: Ac97S9R6mfocA+1iTpKXBfVlibSBggAGJh5AAACjtcAAAHRWQAAFiSTQAAEryZAAAFNDAA==
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 21:42:07 +0000
Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645D29193@dfweml701-chm.china.huawei.com>
References: <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF632AD0443@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <075DE01702BBC249BE1357EFD20DCFE556E2EC@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF632AD07D6@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45389B2C@dfweml701-chm.china.huawei.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645D290DA@dfweml701-chm.china.huawei.com> <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF632AD0B1B@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF632AD0B1B@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.251]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645D29193dfweml701chmchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/mCCxkOW0e6BK9e-opkIkvEVABwU
Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Figures in draft-quinn-sfc-arch-05
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining <sfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 21:42:29 -0000

Eric,

How about this shorter one?

->{sf1}->{sf2|sf2'|sf2''}->{sf3}->{sf4|sf4'|sf4''}->{sf5}->

The intent is pretty simple: If a service function on a chain has multiple instances, one of the service function's instances is selected to treat packets belonging to the service chain.

This is a correct mathematics expression.
There is really no need draw all those boxes.

Linda

From: Eric Gray [mailto:eric.gray@ericsson.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:23 PM
To: Linda Dunbar; Lucy yong; Jakob Heitz (jheitz); Joel Halpern; Paul Quinn (paulq)
Cc: sfc@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Figures in draft-quinn-sfc-arch-05

Linda,

By the way, your proposal for Figure 5 would require a column width of at least 80
characters (more than you are supposed to have in an ID), and the situation would
be worse if it were applied to figure 6.

For figure 5, you can improve the width slightly by fixing up a few of your arrows,
and even more by wrapping the figure.  Wrapping  might detract from simplicity,
however.

--
Eric

From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:linda.dunbar@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:49 PM
To: Lucy yong; Eric Gray; Jakob Heitz (jheitz); Joel Halpern; Paul Quinn (paulq)
Cc: sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Figures in draft-quinn-sfc-arch-05
Importance: High

I like the Figures drawn by Lucy.

Actually why can't Figure 5 be simplified as

    enter -->{sf1}-->-{sf2|sf2'|sf2''}->--{sf3}-->-{sf4|sf4'|sf4''}->--{sf5}--> exit

??

Linda

From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lucy yong
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 1:12 PM
To: Eric Gray; Jakob Heitz (jheitz); Joel Halpern; Paul Quinn (paulq)
Cc: sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Figures in draft-quinn-sfc-arch-05

For readability on these figures, propose:

Figure 5:
                     +-sf2-+       +-sf4-+
                     |     |       |     |
       enter -->sf1-->-sf2->--sf3-->-sf4->--sf5--> exit
                     |     |       |     |
                     +-sf2-+       +-sf4-+
Figure 6:

                         +-sf2-+              +-sf4-+
                         |     |              |     |
    enter -->{sf1|sf1'}-->-sf2->--{sf3|sf3'}-->-sf4->--{sf5}--> exit
                         |     |              |     |
                         +-sf2-+              +-sf4-+

lucy
From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Gray
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 12:54 PM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz); Joel Halpern; Paul Quinn (paulq)
Cc: sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Figures in draft-quinn-sfc-arch-05

HaHa, funny man.  :)

From: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) [mailto:jheitz@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 1:43 PM
To: Eric Gray; Joel Halpern; Paul Quinn (paulq)
Cc: sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
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:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Gray
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 8:31 AM
To: Joel Halpern; Paul Quinn (paulq)
Cc: sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
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