toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I appreciate the thought, but Brady is correct.
The nice part of the cohesive architecture is that the GBP OfOverlay renderer can do more actions than just CHAIN, and the SFC project should support multiple classifiers feeding into SFCOFL2.
One thing I’d like to propose for the SFC Be Release Plan that I can commit to, is working on a OF OVS based classifier for SFC. This would be a simple matter for our team who currently works on both GBP and SFC to do, as it would leverage a lot of the existing GBP OfOverlay pipeline, but in a much simple fashion (as it wouldn’t have to understand policy etc).
Specifically to your point, co-existance is something we have started working on. Table Offsets won’t solve everything, mainly due to pipeline exit/re-entry (recirc won’t solve this by itself either). I’m working on a namespacing idea, but haven’t had time to code it up, but will be proposing this idea as something I can commit to for both RPs. Clearly welcome anyone want to jump in and help, and I know there are many people with differing ideas on how this should be done. (See Ed’s “overlay” sessions at ODL Summit for instance).
Brady, sorry if I am behind on emails, but when were you planning on having SFC Be RP discussions?
For GBP I am having an unconference at the ODL Summit and was planning on scheduling two more WebEx meetings (at 12 shifted times for multi-timezone friendliness) to discuss the GBP Be RP.
Brady Allen Johnson <brady.allen.johnson@...
Friday, July 24, 2015 at 5:30 AMTo:
"Yang, Yi Y" <yi.y.yang@...
>, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...
opendaylight sfc <sfc-dev@...
>, openflowplugin-dev <openflowplugin-dev@...
>, Manohar SL <manohar.sl@...
>, Gaurav Bhagwani <gaurav.bhagwani@...
>, Prakash N N <prakash.n.n@...
>, Hema Gopalkrishnan <hema.gopalkrishnan@...
>, Prem sankar G <prem.sankar.g@...
>, Thomas Bachman <bachman@...
>, alagalah <alagalah@...
Re: [sfc-dev] [groupbasedpolicy-dev] [openflowplugin-dev] How can we fix multiple masters issue better for openflowplugin?
Putting the SFC sfcofl2 in GBP is not a good idea. SFC should work
stand-alone without GBP, and moving the sfcofl2 will break that.
Also, we're considering a VPN+SFC integration in Beryllium, which
wont work if SFC doesnt have the capability to render flows.
On 07/24/2015 04:48 AM, Yang, Yi Y
I think we should move sfcofl2 to GBP openflow
renderer, I think we should only have one openflow renderer,
it should be GBP ofoverlay. Keith said GBP Neutron mapper
has implemented part of OVSDB netvirt openflow pipeline.
Obviously GBP has some duplicate work with OVSDB netvirt, I
think we should fix them.
From my view, I think we can move low layer of
GBP ofoverlay into openflowplugin. That is its best home
I’ll suggest two possible solutions later, we
can discuss them here, and hope you can take them into
Opendaylight Summit for more discussion.
Great initiative kicking off this discussion :)
This is something we will definitely have to address in the
Beryllium release for the GBP+SFC integration. Keith has
been telling me for some time now that its a problem.
I look forward to discussing it with the rest of you next
week at the design summit in Santa Clara.
On 07/20/2015 09:36
AM, Yang, Yi Y wrote:
Soory I can’t, because it is 0:00 am next day
From: Abhijit Kumbhare [mailto:abhijitkoss@...]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 3:09 PM
To: Yang, Yi Y
Cc: Prem sankar G; Hema Gopalkrishnan;
Manohar SL; Gaurav Bhagwani;
Prakash N N
Subject: Re: [groupbasedpolicy-dev]
[openflowplugin-dev] How can we fix multiple masters issue
better for openflowplugin?
We can start some
discussions around this in today (Monday) 9 am Pacific
OpenFlow plugin meeting - which you should be able to
attend remotely. Of course we have other topics to cover
regarding Beryllium & Helium SR 4.
On Sun, Jul 19,
2015 at 11:59 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
Ok, thanks, I can’t attend that in
person, but we will have some representatives to
I have created a placeholder for
this topic during ODL design discussion summit -
We can use this slot for further
brainstorming around this topic.
Hema, good point, we need to
fix the conflict before a flow is written to
MDSAL data store, but this won’t impact we
add this middle layer into openflowplugin,
the reason to put it to openflowplugin is
openflowplugin is a good hosting place for
such middle layer. You can consider it is a
component of openflowplugin, all the
projects will call APIs from this component
to program openflow tables and flows.
I feel that the openflow plugin
may not the place to detect the flow / table
conflict. When the flow / table request
reaches the openflow plugin, the NSFs /
application would have already configured
the flows and tables in the Config datastore
of md-sal. So, taking any corrective action
may be difficult.
We had proposed that conflict
detection to be done even before the NSFs
/application write to the config datastore.
Any thoughts ?
I’m very glad to hear many guys
have realized this issue, Prem Sankar
created this wiki page https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OF_pipeline,
this is a start point, please add other
projects which used openflowplugin so that
we can know how urgent this issue is. As
Abhijit Kumbhare (openflowplugin project
lead) commented, I think openflowplugin is
the best place to implement this, I strongly
suggest Abhijit Kumbhare can help make this
become reality as early as possible, I want
to work on it, but I need to hear your ideas
if you have better ideas.
Hi Yi / Abhijit,
We had proposed an idea in
the ODL India forum on similar lines of Flow
Conflict Prevention. Here is the link to the presentation.
We are interested in any
discussion on this topic.
On Behalf Of Abhijit Kumbhare
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 8:03
To: Yang, Yi Y
Subject: Re: [openflowplugin-dev] How
can we fix multiple masters issue better for
This is a good topic - and
OpenFlow plugin will likely be a good
place for this. Are you planning to work
on this? Why don't you join the next
OpenFlow plugin meeting (at least for
part of the meeting) to discuss more?
As you mention probably
some kind of a flow conflict detection
and resolution module is needed.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 8:24
PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
Maybe some of you know
several projects in ODL have
implemented their own openflow
writers for programming openflow
rules, the end part of the mail are
some info I collected. My question
is how they work together if we
install all of them? Every writer
will create table 0, can it work
normally? How can we fix it if not?
The most important issue is they are
duplicating efforts, what if we can
provide a good middle layer in
openflowplugin or in a separate
project in order that all the
operations are synchronized and
coordinated? I kick off this
discussion here is to let all the
developers discuss it in open mind.
I think we can
consolidate these unnecessary
duplicate efforts into a separate
project or part of openflowplugin,
it is very necessary to provide only
one entry to program openflow tables
and rules, these operations must be
efficiently synchronized and managed
and coordinated, the direct benefits
are as below:
number of tables: all the user
scenarios have ingress and egress
tables although they have different
names or purposes
level APIs for simplifying use for
will be visible for all the users
evolution or update will be
invisible for all the users (API
You can list
more items here if you can imagine
Welcome your great
ideas and look forward to seeing we
can bear fruit.
Table 0: Port Security,
Table 1: Ingress NAT
Table 2: Source Mapper
Table 3: Destination
Table 4: Policy
Table 5: Egress NAT
Table 6: External
Table 0, Transport
Table 1, Path Mapper
Table 2, Next Hop
Table 10, Transport
Table 0: Classifier
Table 10: Director
Table 20: Distributed
Table 30: DNAT for
inbound floating-ip traffic
Table 40: Egress
Table 50: Distributed
Table 60: Distributed
Virtual Routing (DVR)
Table 70: Layer 3
Table 80: Layer2
Table 90: Ingress
Table 100: SNAT for
traffic accessing external network
Table 110: Layer2
mac,vlan based forwarding
openflowplugin-dev mailing list
sfc-dev mailing list