17:04:41 #startmeeting gbp_arch 17:04:41 Meeting started Fri Sep 5 17:04:41 2014 UTC. The chair is tbachman. Information about MeetBot at http://ci.openstack.org/meetbot.html. 17:04:41 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:04:41 The meeting name has been set to 'gbp_arch' 17:04:47 #topic agenda 17:04:55 SFC Approaches 17:05:08 #topic SFC Discussion 17:05:50 uchau1: do you know if lenrow is around? 17:05:53 for SFC discussion? 17:05:54 : https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?MTID=m8bcdb92198ee8edd9b5cc8e1c2d5709c 17:06:10 #info intent of meeting is to walk through SFC model 17:06:21 Can all those on webex not talking please mute 17:06:31 #info That will help us deciding what to do in GBP 17:08:07 #info The main model is he service-function.yang 17:08:18 #info There’s a container for all service functions in the network 17:08:23 tbachman: not sure if lenrow is around 17:08:30 #info and a list that holds all the service functions, keyed by service function anme 17:08:55 #info there’s also operational data that the service function code populates based on input from other services (topology, openflow, etc.) 17:09:10 #info There are also RPCs, which are there mostly for completeness 17:09:20 #info as most people use internal APIs or REST interfaces 17:09:57 #info A service function has a name, type (FW, NAT, etc.), management IP address as per IETF, a leaf for NSH-aware capability 17:10:15 #info The service function also has a list of data plane locators 17:10:32 #info This is for how packets can reach the service function (e.g. VLAN ID) 17:11:14 #info mickey_spiegel asks when you have many locators, is it possible that they’re bound in different ways (e.g. in and out), or are they all treated the same 17:11:31 #info rpenno says they don’t make such distinctions. 17:11:46 #info this is how a service function forwarder sends to a function — you send to one of these locators 17:12:37 #info paulq says that once you break from topology, the concept of in/out (service model perspective) goes away 17:13:06 #info The semantic of in/out can be assigned by the policy layer, if desired 17:13:20 #info and it doesn’t matter from a service chaining perspective 17:13:46 #info in/out is used for policy constructs in the firewall, so as long as it can distinguish that packets are coming in and going out it’s fine 17:14:21 #info In other words, you don’t care about the context of the incoming interface (or other distinguisher) isn’t relavent 17:15:10 #info The sf-data-plane-locator is specific to the service function 17:15:52 #info The philosophy behind the model is that they’re very service function chaining specific 17:16:09 #info It presumes there can be more than one administrative domain 17:16:35 #info The service function chain is an ordered list of service function types 17:16:45 #info A type can be a firewall, NAT, proxy, etc. 17:16:55 #info There’s no standardized list for types 17:17:07 #info And users can create their own identities for their own deployment 17:17:19 #info The types can be linked under a service function chain 17:17:59 #info There is also a symmetric property, and ordered-by property 17:18:45 #info The service function chain doesn’t decide which element is going to provide a function (e.g. FW) 17:19:33 #info refer to the recording to see a demonstration of the UI showing the chains 17:19:47 #info The service function forwarder is a switch, router, bridge, etc. 17:20:06 #info The service function forwarder is responsible for sending packets to the service function and getting them back from it 17:20:15 #info It handles the data plane activities 17:21:20 #info There is a list of service function forwarders, keyed by its name 17:21:41 #info There is a classifier attached to the service function forwarder 17:21:57 #info sanjay asks whether a service function forwarder is in every service node 17:22:16 #info rpenno says the service node might not be there in the future 17:22:30 #info paulq says that the service function forwarder is something a user would never see 17:22:37 #info it allows the service chain to occur 17:22:47 #info to build it’s own service function chain topology 17:22:59 #info without the service functions to have to be routers 17:23:14 #info it provides a logical forwarding on behalf of the service function 17:23:32 #info sanjay asks if there’s one forwarder for every service function? 17:24:16 #info paulq says the service function forwarder is logical — it *could* be the service function 17:24:31 #info can a service function be attached to more than one forwarder? 17:24:34 #info yes it can 17:26:17 #info paulq says that in the context of GBP, GBP would control the classifier 17:26:40 #info mickey_spiegel asks if the classifier is at both the head end and the back if you fork 17:26:44 #info paulq says ues 17:28:00 #info The classifier is a service function construct — it’s not like a networking classifier 17:28:32 #info Each service function forwarder has a set of data plane locators 17:28:45 #info This is how service function forwarders can reach each other, and how overlays are constructed 17:29:00 #info They can be GRE data plane locators, VxLAN data plane locators, etc. 17:29:27 #info Sanjay asks if in a path there will be a single data plane locator for the next hop? 17:29:35 #info rpenno says yes 17:29:46 #info but if there are forks, then you can have multiple data plane locators 17:30:08 #info each service function forwarder has a dictionary, which is the list of all service functions it can reach 17:30:36 #info The data plane locators provide this dictionary 17:31:51 #info There is a fail mode — what a forwarder should do if it can’t reach a service function (bypass, drop) 17:32:11 #info There is also work for support for features like HA 17:32:20 #info The service function forwarder is very generic 17:32:40 #info and can apply to anything (vSwitch, router, etc.) 17:33:04 #info The service function forwarder should be augmented for specific use cases (e.g. OVS with OpenStack) 17:33:23 #info This is demonstrated in service-funciton-forwarder-ovs.yang 17:34:33 #info The service function path is the actual places that a packet will visit 17:34:42 #info as it traverses the overlay 17:34:49 #info There is a list of service function paths 17:35:00 #info A service function path is composed of service path hops 17:35:16 #info where each hop is collection of a service function forwarder and service function name 17:35:43 #info The hop counter is incremented on every service function forwarder 17:36:09 #info This is distinct from the service function index, which is incremented on each service function 17:36:24 #info The hop counter is there to deal with scenarios where you have forwarders with out functions 17:36:36 #info most users won’t have to deal with it 17:37:33 #info The starting index is important for systems that don’t want to compute the starting index 17:37:38 #info there’s also a path ID 17:39:09 #info In order to create a path, in the simplest case, you need to give it a name and the name of the chain that it should be instantiated 17:39:48 #info mickey_spiegel asks if you’re creating service function instances for each hop on the chain 17:40:04 #info rpenno says you need to create the catalog of service functions ahead of time 17:40:22 #info mickey_spiegel asks if you allocate individual service functions for each hop along the path 17:40:40 #info rpenno says yes — it will select the most suitable one for that path 17:41:01 #info where suitable could be as simple as picking the first one that it finds 17:41:14 #info rpenno says there is a language for describing this 17:41:27 #info but it hasn’t been committed upstream yet 17:41:41 #info It’s a metadata model for service function characteristics 17:42:02 #info You want the path to be constructed with certain constraints. Today the constraints are based on use cases 17:42:20 #info For example, geographic location, or more sophisticated things like number of connections on a Firewall 17:42:36 #info The model will be a container-based yang model with a list 17:42:45 #info so that the list can be updated when needed 17:45:52 #info mickey_spiegel asks whether you can reuse a service function that’s already been allocated 17:45:56 #info rpenno says you can 17:47:03 #info rpenno says there’s no tenancy here, and that would have to be an augmentation for the service model 17:47:21 #info and tenancy could be used as a constraint, if desired 17:48:39 #info when a service function path is created, it goes to the service function and checks the operational state 17:49:03 #info and checks to see if the service function is in use by this path 17:49:14 #info so, you could put the name of the tenant in the operational state 17:51:14 #info new service types can be added by creating new identities in the yang model 17:51:36 #info The data plane locators for service function and service function forwarder have a structure that’s imported from another SFC model 17:51:53 #info This is done so that you can enhance it as much as you want without touching the service function and service function forwarder 17:54:47 #info rpenno prefers to use groups and uses over leafrefs 17:55:10 #info b/c the java code that’s generated from leafrefs has additional considerations that he prefers to avoid 17:56:41 #info sanjay asks if there are authorization domains — like who can see what? 17:56:51 #info rpenno says that there are, but that will be post-helium 18:00:02 #info There’s still a question as to whether SFC or GBP renders that front-end classifier 18:05:19 #endmeeting