[vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?

[Adrian Farrel]

Hi,

The IESG is looking at the BoF requests for London, and a question came up on
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

[King, Daniel]

Hi All,

The SFC charter items (specifically 4 & 5) are:

4. Control Plane Mechanisms: A document will be developed to describe requirements for conveying information between control or management elements and SFC implementation points. All protocol extension work resulting from these requirements should be carried out in the working group responsible for the protocol being modified in coordination with this working group, but may be done in this working group under a revised charter after agreement with all the relevant WG chairs and responsible ADs.

5. Manageability: Work on the management and configuration of SFC components related to the support of Service Function Chaining will certainly be needed, but first needs to be better understood and scoped.

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-sfc/

Br, Dan.

-----Original Message-----
From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 21 January 2014 17:57
To: ***@ietf.org
Subject: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?

Hi,

The IESG is looking at the BoF requests for London, and a question came up on 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

[Susan Hares]

Daniel:

All of my use cases show control/management (as most network protocols do),
but the key part of use cases I posted is the need for pools for redundancy
with redundancy mechanisms for virtualized network functions.

I plan to work on the control/management part in SFC.

Sue

-----Original Message-----
From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of King, Daniel
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:05 PM
To: ***@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?

Hi All,

The SFC charter items (specifically 4 & 5) are:

4. Control Plane Mechanisms: A document will be developed to describe
requirements for conveying information between control or management
elements and SFC implementation points. All protocol extension work
resulting from these requirements should be carried out in the working group
responsible for the protocol being modified in coordination with this
working group, but may be done in this working group under a revised charter
after agreement with all the relevant WG chairs and responsible ADs.

5. Manageability: Work on the management and configuration of SFC components
related to the support of Service Function Chaining will certainly be
needed, but first needs to be better understood and scoped.

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-sfc/

Br, Dan.

-----Original Message-----
From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 21 January 2014 17:57
To: ***@ietf.org
Subject: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?

Hi,

The IESG is looking at the BoF requests for London, and a question came up
on 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

[Melinda Shore]

Post by Susan Hares
All of my use cases show control/management (as most network protocols do),
but the key part of use cases I posted is the need for pools for redundancy
with redundancy mechanisms for virtualized network functions.
I plan to work on the control/management part in SFC.

Thanks, Sue - I think it's really important to highlight what
distinguishes vnfpool from other effort. On the control/management
front, there's been a fuzzy line between what ends up in the OPS
area and what ends up not in the OPS area on management topics,
and there's some flexibility there. Mehmet has brought NFV
management discussion into the OPS area from ETSI (where it's
known as "MANO," management and orchestration). Slides from
the Vancouver meeting here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-opsawg-6.pdf

Melinda

[Susan Hares]

Thank you for the reference to MANO. I had seen it before, but I will
review it and send comments.

Sue

-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:***@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:49 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: 'King, Daniel'; ***@ietf.org; ***@olddog.co.uk
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?

Post by Susan Hares
All of my use cases show control/management (as most network
protocols do), but the key part of use cases I posted is the need for
pools for redundancy with redundancy mechanisms for virtualized network

functions.

Post by Susan Hares
I plan to work on the control/management part in SFC.

Thanks, Sue - I think it's really important to highlight what distinguishes
vnfpool from other effort. On the control/management front, there's been a
fuzzy line between what ends up in the OPS area and what ends up not in the
OPS area on management topics, and there's some flexibility there. Mehmet
has brought NFV management discussion into the OPS area from ETSI (where
it's known as "MANO," management and orchestration). Slides from the
Vancouver meeting here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-opsawg-6.pdf

Melinda

[Melinda Shore]

Hi, Adrian:

The vnfpool proposal is quite narrowly focused on redundancy
mechanisms for virtualized network functions.

Melinda

[King, Daniel]

Hi Again,

Thanks Melinda, you are far more succinct than I have been. However, seeing as we may have some additional interest in the vnfpool work, it may be worth summarizing our problem space and some of our discussion thus far for anyone peeking at the list for the first time:

A Virtualized Network Function (VNF) (e.g. vBRAS vFirewall, vLoadbalancer) provides the equivalent function as a dedicated hardware platform. These VNF instances are typically instantiated in clusters running on general purpose servers via a variety of virtualization platforms. As per discussions within the SFC Working Group (WG), a user/network service is typically realized by a chain of VNFs (also known as a VNF Forwarding Graph -VNFG) to deliver function in a deterministic sequence. Whereas SFC WG is tasked with investigating and documenting SFC architecture, and SFC protocol mechanisms (new or extensions to existing solutions) in order to encapsulate and steer traffic, and convey SFC and Service Function Path (SFP) information to function nodes, both virtual and physical.

The vnfpool list was initiated to investigate the resilience requirements and solutions for virtual network functions, running as single, or pools (sets) of VNFs. So clearly some of the vnfpool work may be complimentary to the SFC WG, but I think the majority of work will be in parallel to the SFC WG. Initially this list has scoped the vnfpool work into a problem statement, use cases, architecture and signalling to deploy and manage VNF pool resilience (reliability, redundancy, availability, failover), these discussions have included:

- Signalling between VNF pools for transition (e.g. state change, scaling, moving) management, notification, backup, performance monitoring and announcements;

- Service state management (e.g. synchronizing method, state data format, location and mechanism to access state data);

- Obtaining underlying network information (e.g., this is where we expect cooperation with existing working groups - ALTO, I2RS);

- Mechanisms for instance deployment reflecting resilience requirements (e.g. distribution of instances across different VMs or hypervisors);

- Explore and document requirements for reliable transport of traffic and security mechanisms between VNF pools, and reliable and secure control of VNF pools.

We have established that for some use cases (Virtualisation of Mobile Core Network and IMS (vEPC & vIMS), Virtualisation of the Home Environment (vHome), Virtualisation of Content Distribution Network (vCDN)) there will also be specific resilience requirements, when relevant to the SFC WG, i.e., traffic steering between (virtual) network function nodes, these application specific requirements may require co-operation (via requirements or problem statement I-Ds between vnfpool and SFC WG).

Br, Dan.

-----Original Message-----
From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore
Sent: 21 January 2014 18:39
To: ***@olddog.co.uk
Cc: ***@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?

Hi, Adrian:

The vnfpool proposal is quite narrowly focused on redundancy mechanisms for virtualized network functions.

Melinda


--
Melinda Shore
No Mountain Software
***@nomountain.net

"Software longa, hardware brevis."

[Zongning]

Hi, Dan and Melinda,

Thanks for your reply.

Both of you are right in that our proposal here is narrowly focused on redundancy mechanism for VNF. This goal is basically complementary to SFC charter. Another point I want to add is that vnfpool is not only used in "chained service nodes", but applicable to other cases where service nodes are not necessarily sequentially connected.

-Ning

Post by King, Daniel
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:24 AM
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
Hi Again,
Thanks Melinda, you are far more succinct than I have been. However, seeing
as we may have some additional interest in the vnfpool work, it may be worth
summarizing our problem space and some of our discussion thus far for anyone
A Virtualized Network Function (VNF) (e.g. vBRAS vFirewall, vLoadbalancer)
provides the equivalent function as a dedicated hardware platform. These VNF
instances are typically instantiated in clusters running on general purpose
servers via a variety of virtualization platforms. As per discussions within the
SFC Working Group (WG), a user/network service is typically realized by a chain
of VNFs (also known as a VNF Forwarding Graph -VNFG) to deliver function in
a deterministic sequence. Whereas SFC WG is tasked with investigating and
documenting SFC architecture, and SFC protocol mechanisms (new or
extensions to existing solutions) in order to encapsulate and steer traffic, and
convey SFC and Service Function Path (SFP) information to function nodes, both
virtual and physical.
The vnfpool list was initiated to investigate the resilience requirements and
solutions for virtual network functions, running as single, or pools (sets) of
VNFs. So clearly some of the vnfpool work may be complimentary to the SFC
WG, but I think the majority of work will be in parallel to the SFC WG. Initially
this list has scoped the vnfpool work into a problem statement, use cases,
architecture and signalling to deploy and manage VNF pool resilience (reliability,
- Signalling between VNF pools for transition (e.g. state change, scaling, moving)
management, notification, backup, performance monitoring and
announcements;
- Service state management (e.g. synchronizing method, state data format,
location and mechanism to access state data);
- Obtaining underlying network information (e.g., this is where we expect
cooperation with existing working groups - ALTO, I2RS);
- Mechanisms for instance deployment reflecting resilience requirements (e.g.
distribution of instances across different VMs or hypervisors);
- Explore and document requirements for reliable transport of traffic and
security mechanisms between VNF pools, and reliable and secure control of
VNF pools.
We have established that for some use cases (Virtualisation of Mobile Core
Network and IMS (vEPC & vIMS), Virtualisation of the Home Environment
(vHome), Virtualisation of Content Distribution Network (vCDN)) there will also
be specific resilience requirements, when relevant to the SFC WG, i.e., traffic
steering between (virtual) network function nodes, these application specific
requirements may require co-operation (via requirements or problem
statement I-Ds between vnfpool and SFC WG).
Br, Dan.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 21 January 2014 18:39
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
The vnfpool proposal is quite narrowly focused on redundancy mechanisms for
virtualized network functions.
Melinda
--
Melinda Shore
No Mountain Software
"Software longa, hardware brevis."
_______________________________________________
vnfpool mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool
_______________________________________________
vnfpool mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool

[Susan Hares]

Ning:

Therefore, some of the mechanisms may be in parallel or serial. Shall I add
comments in my use cases to indicate when VNF functions are parallel or
serial?

Sue

-----Original Message-----
From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zongning
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:57 PM
To: King, Daniel; Melinda Shore; ***@olddog.co.uk
Cc: ***@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?

Hi, Dan and Melinda,

Thanks for your reply.

Both of you are right in that our proposal here is narrowly focused on
redundancy mechanism for VNF. This goal is basically complementary to SFC
charter. Another point I want to add is that vnfpool is not only used in
"chained service nodes", but applicable to other cases where service nodes
are not necessarily sequentially connected.

-Ning

Post by King, Daniel
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:24 AM
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
Hi Again,
Thanks Melinda, you are far more succinct than I have been. However,
seeing as we may have some additional interest in the vnfpool work, it
may be worth summarizing our problem space and some of our discussion
A Virtualized Network Function (VNF) (e.g. vBRAS vFirewall,
vLoadbalancer) provides the equivalent function as a dedicated
hardware platform. These VNF instances are typically instantiated in
clusters running on general purpose servers via a variety of
virtualization platforms. As per discussions within the SFC Working
Group (WG), a user/network service is typically realized by a chain of
VNFs (also known as a VNF Forwarding Graph -VNFG) to deliver function
in a deterministic sequence. Whereas SFC WG is tasked with
investigating and documenting SFC architecture, and SFC protocol
mechanisms (new or extensions to existing solutions) in order to
encapsulate and steer traffic, and convey SFC and Service Function Path

(SFP) information to function nodes, both virtual and physical.

Post by King, Daniel
The vnfpool list was initiated to investigate the resilience
requirements and solutions for virtual network functions, running as
single, or pools (sets) of VNFs. So clearly some of the vnfpool work
may be complimentary to the SFC WG, but I think the majority of work
will be in parallel to the SFC WG. Initially this list has scoped the
vnfpool work into a problem statement, use cases, architecture and
signalling to deploy and manage VNF pool resilience (reliability,
- Signalling between VNF pools for transition (e.g. state change,
scaling, moving) management, notification, backup, performance
monitoring and announcements;
- Service state management (e.g. synchronizing method, state data
format, location and mechanism to access state data);
- Obtaining underlying network information (e.g., this is where we
expect cooperation with existing working groups - ALTO, I2RS);
- Mechanisms for instance deployment reflecting resilience requirements (e.g.
distribution of instances across different VMs or hypervisors);
- Explore and document requirements for reliable transport of traffic
and security mechanisms between VNF pools, and reliable and secure
control of VNF pools.
We have established that for some use cases (Virtualisation of Mobile
Core Network and IMS (vEPC & vIMS), Virtualisation of the Home
Environment (vHome), Virtualisation of Content Distribution Network
(vCDN)) there will also be specific resilience requirements, when
relevant to the SFC WG, i.e., traffic steering between (virtual)
network function nodes, these application specific requirements may
require co-operation (via requirements or problem statement I-Ds between

vnfpool and SFC WG).

Post by King, Daniel
Br, Dan.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 21 January 2014 18:39
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
The vnfpool proposal is quite narrowly focused on redundancy
mechanisms for virtualized network functions.
Melinda
--
Melinda Shore
No Mountain Software
"Software longa, hardware brevis."
_______________________________________________
vnfpool mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool
_______________________________________________
vnfpool mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool

[Zongning]

You are more than welcome, Sue. :-)

-Ning

Post by King, Daniel
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:15 AM
Subject: RE: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
Therefore, some of the mechanisms may be in parallel or serial. Shall I add
comments in my use cases to indicate when VNF functions are parallel or
serial?
Sue
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
Hi, Dan and Melinda,
Thanks for your reply.
Both of you are right in that our proposal here is narrowly focused on
redundancy mechanism for VNF. This goal is basically complementary to SFC
charter. Another point I want to add is that vnfpool is not only used in
"chained service nodes", but applicable to other cases where service nodes
are not necessarily sequentially connected.
-Ning

Post by King, Daniel
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:24 AM
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
Hi Again,
Thanks Melinda, you are far more succinct than I have been. However,
seeing as we may have some additional interest in the vnfpool work, it
may be worth summarizing our problem space and some of our discussion
A Virtualized Network Function (VNF) (e.g. vBRAS vFirewall,
vLoadbalancer) provides the equivalent function as a dedicated
hardware platform. These VNF instances are typically instantiated in
clusters running on general purpose servers via a variety of
virtualization platforms. As per discussions within the SFC Working
Group (WG), a user/network service is typically realized by a chain of
VNFs (also known as a VNF Forwarding Graph -VNFG) to deliver function
in a deterministic sequence. Whereas SFC WG is tasked with
investigating and documenting SFC architecture, and SFC protocol
mechanisms (new or extensions to existing solutions) in order to
encapsulate and steer traffic, and convey SFC and Service Function Path

(SFP) information to function nodes, both virtual and physical.

Post by King, Daniel
The vnfpool list was initiated to investigate the resilience
requirements and solutions for virtual network functions, running as
single, or pools (sets) of VNFs. So clearly some of the vnfpool work
may be complimentary to the SFC WG, but I think the majority of work
will be in parallel to the SFC WG. Initially this list has scoped the
vnfpool work into a problem statement, use cases, architecture and
signalling to deploy and manage VNF pool resilience (reliability,
- Signalling between VNF pools for transition (e.g. state change,
scaling, moving) management, notification, backup, performance
monitoring and announcements;
- Service state management (e.g. synchronizing method, state data
format, location and mechanism to access state data);
- Obtaining underlying network information (e.g., this is where we
expect cooperation with existing working groups - ALTO, I2RS);
- Mechanisms for instance deployment reflecting resilience requirements

(e.g.

Post by King, Daniel
distribution of instances across different VMs or hypervisors);
- Explore and document requirements for reliable transport of traffic
and security mechanisms between VNF pools, and reliable and secure
control of VNF pools.
We have established that for some use cases (Virtualisation of Mobile
Core Network and IMS (vEPC & vIMS), Virtualisation of the Home
Environment (vHome), Virtualisation of Content Distribution Network
(vCDN)) there will also be specific resilience requirements, when
relevant to the SFC WG, i.e., traffic steering between (virtual)
network function nodes, these application specific requirements may
require co-operation (via requirements or problem statement I-Ds between

vnfpool and SFC WG).

Post by King, Daniel
Br, Dan.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 21 January 2014 18:39
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
The vnfpool proposal is quite narrowly focused on redundancy
mechanisms for virtualized network functions.
Melinda
--
Melinda Shore
No Mountain Software
"Software longa, hardware brevis."
_______________________________________________
vnfpool mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool
_______________________________________________
vnfpool mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool

_______________________________________________
vnfpool mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool

[Qin Wu]

Sue:
I agree with your comment.

Regards!
-Qin
-----Original Message-----
From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:15 AM
To: Zongning; 'King, Daniel'; 'Melinda Shore'; ***@olddog.co.uk
Cc: ***@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?

Ning:

Therefore, some of the mechanisms may be in parallel or serial. Shall I add
comments in my use cases to indicate when VNF functions are parallel or
serial?

Sue

-----Original Message-----
From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zongning
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:57 PM
To: King, Daniel; Melinda Shore; ***@olddog.co.uk
Cc: ***@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?

Hi, Dan and Melinda,

Thanks for your reply.

Both of you are right in that our proposal here is narrowly focused on
redundancy mechanism for VNF. This goal is basically complementary to SFC
charter. Another point I want to add is that vnfpool is not only used in
"chained service nodes", but applicable to other cases where service nodes
are not necessarily sequentially connected.

-Ning

Post by King, Daniel
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:24 AM
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
Hi Again,
Thanks Melinda, you are far more succinct than I have been. However,
seeing as we may have some additional interest in the vnfpool work, it
may be worth summarizing our problem space and some of our discussion
A Virtualized Network Function (VNF) (e.g. vBRAS vFirewall,
vLoadbalancer) provides the equivalent function as a dedicated
hardware platform. These VNF instances are typically instantiated in
clusters running on general purpose servers via a variety of
virtualization platforms. As per discussions within the SFC Working
Group (WG), a user/network service is typically realized by a chain of
VNFs (also known as a VNF Forwarding Graph -VNFG) to deliver function
in a deterministic sequence. Whereas SFC WG is tasked with
investigating and documenting SFC architecture, and SFC protocol
mechanisms (new or extensions to existing solutions) in order to
encapsulate and steer traffic, and convey SFC and Service Function Path

(SFP) information to function nodes, both virtual and physical.

Post by King, Daniel
The vnfpool list was initiated to investigate the resilience
requirements and solutions for virtual network functions, running as
single, or pools (sets) of VNFs. So clearly some of the vnfpool work
may be complimentary to the SFC WG, but I think the majority of work
will be in parallel to the SFC WG. Initially this list has scoped the
vnfpool work into a problem statement, use cases, architecture and
signalling to deploy and manage VNF pool resilience (reliability,
- Signalling between VNF pools for transition (e.g. state change,
scaling, moving) management, notification, backup, performance
monitoring and announcements;
- Service state management (e.g. synchronizing method, state data
format, location and mechanism to access state data);
- Obtaining underlying network information (e.g., this is where we
expect cooperation with existing working groups - ALTO, I2RS);
- Mechanisms for instance deployment reflecting resilience requirements (e.g.
distribution of instances across different VMs or hypervisors);
- Explore and document requirements for reliable transport of traffic
and security mechanisms between VNF pools, and reliable and secure
control of VNF pools.
We have established that for some use cases (Virtualisation of Mobile
Core Network and IMS (vEPC & vIMS), Virtualisation of the Home
Environment (vHome), Virtualisation of Content Distribution Network
(vCDN)) there will also be specific resilience requirements, when
relevant to the SFC WG, i.e., traffic steering between (virtual)
network function nodes, these application specific requirements may
require co-operation (via requirements or problem statement I-Ds between

vnfpool and SFC WG).

Post by King, Daniel
Br, Dan.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 21 January 2014 18:39
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
The vnfpool proposal is quite narrowly focused on redundancy
mechanisms for virtualized network functions.
Melinda
--
Melinda Shore
No Mountain Software
"Software longa, hardware brevis."
_______________________________________________
vnfpool mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool
_______________________________________________
vnfpool mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool

[Qin Wu]

Good clarification.
I think SFC and NFVPool may share some common components, e.g., service function discovery, service function identifier, service function locator,
As for auto provision, SFC focuses on how to provision service function and setup service function path while NFVPool focuses on how to replace the
Failing one with the same class service function, irrespective the failing service node is in the service chain or not.

As for proposed work, I am not sure obtaining underlying network information is enough, service function is build on top of underlying network.The underlying network information should be abstracted and form service topology for service function.

Regards!
-Qin
-----Original Message-----
From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of King, Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:24 AM
To: Melinda Shore; ***@olddog.co.uk
Cc: ***@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?

Hi Again,

Thanks Melinda, you are far more succinct than I have been. However, seeing as we may have some additional interest in the vnfpool work, it may be worth summarizing our problem space and some of our discussion thus far for anyone peeking at the list for the first time:

A Virtualized Network Function (VNF) (e.g. vBRAS vFirewall, vLoadbalancer) provides the equivalent function as a dedicated hardware platform. These VNF instances are typically instantiated in clusters running on general purpose servers via a variety of virtualization platforms. As per discussions within the SFC Working Group (WG), a user/network service is typically realized by a chain of VNFs (also known as a VNF Forwarding Graph -VNFG) to deliver function in a deterministic sequence. Whereas SFC WG is tasked with investigating and documenting SFC architecture, and SFC protocol mechanisms (new or extensions to existing solutions) in order to encapsulate and steer traffic, and convey SFC and Service Function Path (SFP) information to function nodes, both virtual and physical.

The vnfpool list was initiated to investigate the resilience requirements and solutions for virtual network functions, running as single, or pools (sets) of VNFs. So clearly some of the vnfpool work may be complimentary to the SFC WG, but I think the majority of work will be in parallel to the SFC WG. Initially this list has scoped the vnfpool work into a problem statement, use cases, architecture and signalling to deploy and manage VNF pool resilience (reliability, redundancy, availability, failover), these discussions have included:

- Signalling between VNF pools for transition (e.g. state change, scaling, moving) management, notification, backup, performance monitoring and announcements;

- Service state management (e.g. synchronizing method, state data format, location and mechanism to access state data);

- Obtaining underlying network information (e.g., this is where we expect cooperation with existing working groups - ALTO, I2RS);

- Mechanisms for instance deployment reflecting resilience requirements (e.g. distribution of instances across different VMs or hypervisors);

- Explore and document requirements for reliable transport of traffic and security mechanisms between VNF pools, and reliable and secure control of VNF pools.

We have established that for some use cases (Virtualisation of Mobile Core Network and IMS (vEPC & vIMS), Virtualisation of the Home Environment (vHome), Virtualisation of Content Distribution Network (vCDN)) there will also be specific resilience requirements, when relevant to the SFC WG, i.e., traffic steering between (virtual) network function nodes, these application specific requirements may require co-operation (via requirements or problem statement I-Ds between vnfpool and SFC WG).

Br, Dan.

-----Original Message-----
From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore
Sent: 21 January 2014 18:39
To: ***@olddog.co.uk
Cc: ***@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?

Hi, Adrian:

The vnfpool proposal is quite narrowly focused on redundancy mechanisms for virtualized network functions.

Melinda


--
Melinda Shore
No Mountain Software
***@nomountain.net

"Software longa, hardware brevis."

[Zongning]

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

Post by King, Daniel
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:57 AM
Subject: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
Hi,
The IESG is looking at the BoF requests for London, and a question came up on
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
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool

[Zongning]

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

Post by King, Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: Zongning
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:34 AM
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
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

Post by King, Daniel
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:57 AM
Subject: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
Hi,
The IESG is looking at the BoF requests for London, and a question came up

on

Post by King, Daniel
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
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool

[Qin Wu]

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-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zongning
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:42 AM
To: Zongning; ***@olddog.co.uk; ***@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

Post by King, Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: Zongning
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:34 AM
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
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

Post by King, Daniel
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:57 AM
Subject: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
Hi,
The IESG is looking at the BoF requests for London, and a question came up

on

Post by King, Daniel
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
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool

[LAC Chidung]

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

Post by Qin Wu
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-----
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:42 AM
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

Post by King, Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: Zongning
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:34 AM
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
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

Post by King, Daniel
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:57 AM
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
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool

[Qin Wu]

Hi, Chidung:
That's one good interpretation.
You are right, I should add assumption that the service node that is bypassed is optional service node in the chain.

Regards!
-Qin
From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of LAC Chidung
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:26 PM
To: Qin Wu
Cc: ***@ietf.org; ***@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-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zongning

Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:42 AM

To: Zongning; ***@olddog.co.uk<mailto:***@olddog.co.uk>; ***@ietf.org<mailto:***@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: '***@olddog.co.uk<mailto:***@olddog.co.uk>'; ***@ietf.org<mailto:***@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-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel

Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:57 AM

To: ***@ietf.org<mailto:***@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

***@ietf.org<mailto:***@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool

[Linda Dunbar]

Here is my take of the differences and the overlap with SFC:

If a service function has a small number of instances, say less than 5, and they are relative stable, then it is doable for Service Chain to specify the specific instances, the so called "Service Chain Path" by SFC drafts.


But if there are large number of instances, say in hundreds, and those instances' location/presence change over time (e.g. in NFV environment), then it is not scalable to have Service Chain path to specify the specific instances.

The service function instances' management, e.g. selection, replacement when failure occurs or over-utilized from a pool of available instances, notification should be the scope of VNFpool.

Linda



From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:38 PM
To: LAC Chidung
Cc: ***@ietf.org; ***@olddog.co.uk
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?

Hi, Chidung:
That's one good interpretation.
You are right, I should add assumption that the service node that is bypassed is optional service node in the chain.

Regards!
-Qin
From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of LAC Chidung
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:26 PM
To: Qin Wu
Cc: ***@ietf.org<mailto:***@ietf.org>; ***@olddog.co.uk<mailto:***@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-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zongning

Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:42 AM

To: Zongning; ***@olddog.co.uk<mailto:***@olddog.co.uk>; ***@ietf.org<mailto:***@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: '***@olddog.co.uk<mailto:***@olddog.co.uk>'; ***@ietf.org<mailto:***@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-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel

Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:57 AM

To: ***@ietf.org<mailto:***@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

***@ietf.org<mailto:***@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool

[Susan Hares]

Linda:



I agree with your use example, but would like to clarify it.



VNF Pools is about redundancy needs rather than chaining paths. Pools
provide the redundancy. You may need the redundancy for even a short chain
if it is High-availability. You may have parallel chains to support the
redundancy.



Cheers,

Sue



From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 5:55 PM
To: Qin Wu; LAC Chidung
Cc: ***@ietf.org; ***@olddog.co.uk
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?



Here is my take of the differences and the overlap with SFC:



If a service function has a small number of instances, say less than 5, and
they are relative stable, then it is doable for Service Chain to specify the
specific instances, the so called “Service Chain Path” by SFC drafts.





But if there are large number of instances, say in hundreds, and those
instances’ location/presence change over time (e.g. in NFV environment),
then it is not scalable to have Service Chain path to specify the specific
instances.



The service function instances’ management, e.g. selection, replacement when
failure occurs or over-utilized from a pool of available instances,
notification should be the scope of VNFpool.



Linda







From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:38 PM
To: LAC Chidung
Cc: ***@ietf.org; ***@olddog.co.uk
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?



Hi, Chidung:

That’s one good interpretation.

You are right, I should add assumption that the service node that is
bypassed is optional service node in the chain.



Regards!

-Qin

From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of LAC Chidung
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:26 PM
To: Qin Wu
Cc: ***@ietf.org; ***@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-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zongning
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:42 AM
To: Zongning; ***@olddog.co.uk; ***@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: '***@olddog.co.uk'; ***@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-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:57 AM
To: ***@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

[LAC Chidung]

_@ Linda:_ "/If a service function has a small number of instances, say
less than 5/": a service function (SF) is composed of 5 Network
Functions (NFs) - correct ?
_@ Susan:_ if the answer to the question above is "Y", then "/You may
have parallel chains to support the redundancy/" seems strange ...
Actually, a chain characterizes a SF, i.e., to obtain a certain SF, we
are putting some NFs (5NFs in the previous example) in a chain. If this
SF has to be highly available, the need is to make each NF highly
available (using vnfpool for instance), but not to create another chain,
because there is one unique chain to render the SF we are currently
designing.
Thank you for correcting my interpretation.
Best,
Chidung

Post by Susan Hares
I agree with your use example, but would like to clarify it.
VNF Pools is about redundancy needs rather than chaining paths.
Pools provide the redundancy. You may need the redundancy for even
a short chain if it is High-availability. You may have parallel
chains to support the redundancy.
Cheers,
Sue
Dunbar
*Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2014 5:55 PM
*To:* Qin Wu; LAC Chidung
*Subject:* Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
If a service function has a small number of instances, say less than
5, and they are relative stable, then it is doable for Service Chain
to specify the specific instances, the so called "Service Chain Path"
by SFC drafts.
But if there are large number of instances, say in hundreds, and those
instances' location/presence change over time (e.g. in NFV
environment), then it is not scalable to have Service Chain path to
specify the specific instances.
The service function instances' management, e.g. selection,
replacement when failure occurs or over-utilized from a pool of
available instances, notification should be the scope of VNFpool.
Linda
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:38 PM
*To:* LAC Chidung
*Subject:* Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
That's one good interpretation.
You are right, I should add assumption that the service node that is
bypassed is optional service node in the chain.
Regards!
-Qin
Chidung
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:26 PM
*To:* Qin Wu
*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
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-----
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:42 AM
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
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
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-----
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:57 AM
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
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool

[Linda Dunbar]

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-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of LAC Chidung
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:26 AM
To: Qin Wu
Cc: ***@ietf.org; ***@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-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zongning

Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:42 AM

To: Zongning; ***@olddog.co.uk<mailto:***@olddog.co.uk>; ***@ietf.org<mailto:***@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: '***@olddog.co.uk<mailto:***@olddog.co.uk>'; ***@ietf.org<mailto:***@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-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel

Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:57 AM

To: ***@ietf.org<mailto:***@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

***@ietf.org<mailto:***@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool

[LAC Chidung]

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

Post by Linda Dunbar
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
Chidung
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:26 AM
*To:* Qin Wu
*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
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-----
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:42 AM
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
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
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-----
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:57 AM
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
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool

[Linda Dunbar]

Chidung,

Thanks for the examples. More questions are inserted below:

From: LAC Chidung [mailto:***@orange.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:33 AM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: ***@ietf.org; ***@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-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of LAC Chidung
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:26 AM
To: Qin Wu
Cc: ***@ietf.org<mailto:***@ietf.org>; ***@olddog.co.uk<mailto:***@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-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zongning

Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:42 AM

To: Zongning; ***@olddog.co.uk<mailto:***@olddog.co.uk>; ***@ietf.org<mailto:***@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: '***@olddog.co.uk<mailto:***@olddog.co.uk>'; ***@ietf.org<mailto:***@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-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel

Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:57 AM

To: ***@ietf.org<mailto:***@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

***@ietf.org<mailto:***@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool

[LAC Chidung]

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

Post by Linda Dunbar
Chidung,
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:33 AM
*To:* Linda Dunbar
*Subject:* Re: [vnfpool] Overlap with SFC?
* 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
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
*LAC Chidung
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:26 AM
*To:* Qin Wu
*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
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-----
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:42 AM
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
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
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-----
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:57 AM
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