=========================================
#opendaylight-group-policy: ODL-GBP-MODEL
=========================================


Meeting started by dconde at 17:08:10 UTC.  The full logs are available
at
http://meetings.opendaylight.org/opendaylight-group-policy/2014/odl_gbp_model/opendaylight-group-policy-odl_gbp_model.2014-06-13-17.08.log.html
.



Meeting summary
---------------

* service_insertion  (dconde, 17:08:34)
  * we need to determine whether GBP does the plumbing for other service
    insertion projects  (dconde, 17:09:29)
  * readams says a pair of EP talking via a FW -- but we are restricted
    from dealing with this in a pairwise fashion.  (dconde, 17:10:16)
  * ways to reason about it.  (dconde, 17:11:34)
  * dvorkin says - group provides a contract … (he's drawing on board)
    then another group consumes a contract.  (dconde, 17:11:52)
  * within this grop, there is a subject to the conversation., let's say
    it's for HTTP for sake of argument  (dconde, 17:12:11)
  * action is specified to redirect to a service GRAPH  (dconde,
    17:12:22)
  * let's actually call it a chain.  (dconde, 17:12:31)
  * there's an entry point an an out. and we stick devicess iside. for
    service functions. we may have direct return too.  (dconde,
    17:13:05)
  * expressed from consumer's POV, we enter the service and we pop-out.
    It's VERY easy, right?  (dconde, 17:13:28)
  * but now, for the details.  (dconde, 17:13:36)
  * what if we try to do the following:  (dconde, 17:13:46)
  * we have two VIPs in LB  (dconde, 17:14:05)
  * we have two poolls. grp 1 belongs to pool1, grp 2 belongs to pool 2
    (dconde, 17:14:37)
  * it's no longer a chain, it's a GRAPH.  (dconde, 17:14:57)
  * so new semantics.  (dconde, 17:15:02)
  * if we have a WAF betwen pool 2 and grp 2  (dconde, 17:15:41)
  * if WAF a member of EPG or something else.  (dconde, 17:15:51)
  * as dlenrow said we treat service function as a group  (dconde,
    17:16:24)
  * so we are drawing  group graph view  (dconde, 17:17:11)
  * do we don't wnt to get stuff confused with application intent.
    (dconde, 17:17:57)
  * do we treat them as regular rules to redirect?  (dconde, 17:20:22)
  * probably need to treat tranparent functions differently from
    non-transparent  (dlenrow, 17:21:46)
  * we want these to be auto provisioned too.  (dconde, 17:23:27)
  * are we a plumber or what?  (dconde, 17:23:31)
  * mickey_spiegel says no everything is transparent.  (dconde,
    17:34:09)
  * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/adv-services-in-vms
    (dconde, 17:40:45)
  * AGREED: we need to bring in others who are more familiar with the
    services world (Quinn)  (dconde, 17:46:38)
  * we are talking about
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quinn-sfc-arch-04  (dconde,
    17:48:14)



Meeting ended at 17:53:09 UTC.



People present (lines said)
---------------------------

* dconde (35)
* mickey_spiegel (4)
* odl_meetbot (4)
* tbachman (3)
* dlenrow (1)
* alagalah_ (0)



Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4