Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
LAC Chidung <chidung.lac@orange.com> Mon, 17 February 2014 10:36 UTC
Return-Path: <chidung.lac@orange.com>
X-Original-To: vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 430881A0481 for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:36:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.431
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
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 MBtFCg-OwDVH for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:36:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from r-mail2.rd.orange.com (r-mail2.rd.orange.com [217.108.152.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11D5F1A00DD for <vnfpool@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:36:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from r-mail2.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E0F8C5D8CAB; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:36:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by r-mail2.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC1BB5D86E6; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:36:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:36:45 +0100
Received: from [10.193.5.32] ([10.193.5.32]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:36:45 +0100
Message-ID: <5301E63C.9030308@orange.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:36:44 +0100
From: LAC Chidung <chidung.lac@orange.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
References: <0b3501cf16d2$2a3c1e80$7eb45b80$@olddog.co.uk> <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC666779258686F9@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43C74DDE@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <52DFAAAA.4090902@orange.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645C70F9E@dfweml701-chm.china.huawei.com> <52E7BFA4.5020509@orange.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645C807DA@dfweml701-chm.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645C807DA@dfweml701-chm.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070901020504010500010401"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Feb 2014 10:36:45.0022 (UTC) FILETIME=[2754B7E0:01CF2BCC]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/vnfpool/sAIlNo7vqRzXtaw1m0Fr3tUHXgc
Cc: "vnfpool@ietf.org" <vnfpool@ietf.org>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
X-BeenThere: vnfpool@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for virtual network function resource pooling." <vnfpool.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vnfpool>, <mailto:vnfpool-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vnfpool/>
List-Post: <mailto:vnfpool@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vnfpool-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool>, <mailto:vnfpool-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:36:55 -0000
Hi Linda, Sorry for not being more precise: VP-VC refer to Virtual Path and Virtual Channel in ATM. In normal operations, a dedicated VP-VC is allocated to VoIP (QoS guaranteed), while another (Internet) VP-VC is used for other feaures (e-mail, ..), based on the best effort mode. If the service is defined as the one delivered by the home gateway, both VP-VCs are necessary (chain) for features such as: VoIP, browsing, e-mail, ... In this case, the 1st VP-VC is "optional" [I am referring to your original question of Jan 25th], while the 2nd one is "mandatory" because if the 1st one fails, VoIP is still ok, although its QoS is not guaranteed anymore (degraded mode). Of course, if VoIP is defined as the service, it changes a little bit because one can consider in this case the 1st VP-VC as the primary path, and the 2nd one as the standby path ... Best, Chidung Le 15/02/2014 00:37, Linda Dunbar a écrit : > > Chidung, > > Thanks for the examples. More questions are inserted below: > > *From:*LAC Chidung [mailto:chidung.lac@orange.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:33 AM > *To:* Linda Dunbar > *Cc:* vnfpool@ietf.org; adrian@olddog.co.uk > *Subject:* Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? > > 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. > > [Linda] is "VP-VC" a service function on a chain? It is more like two > components: primary VP-VC and standby Internet VP-VC. There are many > available tools to tackle this primary/standby switches. Do you > consider this part of the service chain or VNFpool domain? > > * 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:vnfpool-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of > *LAC Chidung > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:26 AM > *To:* Qin Wu > *Cc:* vnfpool@ietf.org <mailto:vnfpool@ietf.org>; > adrian@olddog.co.uk <mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk> > *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:vnfpool-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zongning > > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:42 AM > > To: Zongning;adrian@olddog.co.uk <mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>;vnfpool@ietf.org <mailto: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 <mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>';vnfpool@ietf.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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] Overlap with SFC? Adrian Farrel
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? King, Daniel
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? Melinda Shore
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? King, Daniel
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? Susan Hares
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? Melinda Shore
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? Zongning
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? Susan Hares
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? Susan Hares
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? Zongning
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? Zongning
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? Zongning
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? Qin Wu
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? Qin Wu
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? Qin Wu
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? LAC Chidung
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? Qin Wu
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? Linda Dunbar
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? Linda Dunbar
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? Susan Hares
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? LAC Chidung
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? LAC Chidung
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? Linda Dunbar
- Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC? LAC Chidung