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:vnfpool-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zongning
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:42 AM
> To: Zongning; adrian@olddog.co.uk; vnfpool@ietf.org
> 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: 'adrian@olddog.co.uk'; vnfpool@ietf.org
>> 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:vnfpool-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:57 AM
>>> To: vnfpool@ietf.org
>>> 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
>>> vnfpool@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool