Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?

[LAC Chidung <[e-mail]>]

Well, one can imagine plenty of situations:
* In a residential/home gateway, there is a dedicated VP-VC for VoIP. If 
this channel is down, the VoIP service will use instead the Internet 
VP-VC: in this case, if the user is alone at home, it could be ok, but 
if someone else (at home) is uploading/downloading huge files, the 
quality of the conversation is badly degraded.
* Case of a residential/home gateway which provides 2 wifi interfaces 
(e.g., 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz): if the 5 GHz interface is down, one can still 
use the 2.4 GHz interface for wifi connection, but it is slower.
* A smartphone connected to a service provider (SP) network is 
identified automatically, allowing the user to access to the SP (and its 
partners) services without additional identification. If the 
authentication module is down, the user wil need to provide the 
login/pwd (for instance) any time he/she wants to access to such services.
* Etc.
Best,
Chidung

Le 25/01/2014 00:05, Linda Dunbar a écrit :
>
> Chidung,
>
> Do you have an example of "A service chain needs X+Y service nodes 
> while X is mandatory and Y being optional"?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Linda
>
> *From:*vnfpool [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *LAC 
> Chidung
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:26 AM
> *To:* Qin Wu
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
>
> Hi Qin,
> "/in service chain, when a service node is down, what SFC is doing is 
> to bypass this service node/": is the following interpretation ok ?
> A service chain needs X+Y service nodes in order to provide the 
> *_full_* service: the X service nodes are mandatory, while the Y 
> service nodes are (kind of) optional, i.e., if one (or more) of these 
> Y service nodes is (are) down, the service chain can still provide the 
> service, but in a *_degraded mode_*. In this case,*the bypassing can 
> only happen* for one of the Y service nodes, i.e., if one of the X 
> service nodes is down, there is *_no service at all_*.
> _NB:_ in this example, we consider, of course, that there is no 
> redundancy anywhere, i.e., if a service node is down, the only thing 
> to do is to fix it, and while waiting for the reparation, we face a 
> degraded service, or no service at all.
> Best,
> Chidung
>
> Le 22/01/2014 06:05, Qin Wu a écrit :
>
>     My Understanding is
>
>     in service chain, when a service node is down, what SFC is doing is to bypass this service node while
>
>     What nfvpool is doing is to replace the failing one with the new service node which provide the same functionality.
>
>     Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
>     Regards!
>
>     -Qin
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>
>     From: vnfpool [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zongning
>
>     Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:42 AM
>
>     To: Zongning;[e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>;[e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
>
>       
>
>     Sorry, item 1) is obviously not finished. :-)
>
>     1) SFC targets on steering packets among service function nodes. vnfpool focuses on redundancy for service nodes, e.g., selecting standby nodes, handling nodes transition/failure cases, without caring about how to construct the data path.
>
>     Again, my fault.
>
>     -Ning
>
>       
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>
>         From: Zongning
>
>         Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:34 AM
>
>         To: '[e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>';[e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>         Subject: RE: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
>
>           
>
>         Hi, Adrian,
>
>         Thanks for raising this question. Actually vnfpool folks have been discussing this
>
>         question a lot since the very beginning of this work.
>
>         We believe vnfpool and SFC are independent and complementary mainly due to
>
>         the below reasons:
>
>         1) SFC targets on steering packets among service function nodes. vnfpool
>
>         focuses on redundancy for service nodes, e.g., selecting standby nodes,
>
>         handling nodes transition/failure cases, without caring how
>
>         2) vnfpool manager in our proposal could interact with SFC control entity to: 1)
>
>         advertise redundant service nodes; 2) notify status of redundant nodes when
>
>         required; 3) receive resiliency requirements from SFC control entity (if any); and
>
>         so on.
>
>         3) vnfpool is not only used in "chained service nodes", but applicable to other
>
>         cases where service nodes are not necessarily sequentially connected.
>
>         I appreciate any further feedback and advice from you or IESG, as I believe
>
>         these feedback will greatly improve the quality of our proposed charter.
>
>         Thanks.
>
>         -Ning
>
>           
>
>             -----Original Message-----
>
>             From: vnfpool [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
>
>             Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:57 AM
>
>             To:[e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>             Subject: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
>
>               
>
>             Hi,
>
>             The IESG is looking at the BoF requests for London, and a question came upon the overlap between the proposal here and items 4 and 5 in the SFC Charter.
>
>             I think it would be valuable if you could discuss the overlap and the
>
>             interaction between the two efforts so that there is a clear view.
>
>             Thanks,
>
>             Adrian
>
>               
>
>             _______________________________________________
>
>             vnfpool mailing list
>
>             [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool
>