1) Lets consider that we merge flows having conflict actions and programming the action that belong to the flow of higher priority. This becomes complex when admin wanted to re-prioritize. 2) In next scenario, the match-fields of flow 1 may be a subset of flow 2’s match-fields. Not sure if this falls under conflict definition of this project. Thanks, Hari
From: Venkataraghavan, C
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 9:46 PM
To: Edward Warnicke; Abhijit Kumbhare
Cc: alagalah; Brady Allen Johnson; Yang, Yi Y; sfc-dev@...; lacp-dev@...; openflowplugin-dev@...; Manohar SL; ovsdb-dev@...; groupbasedpolicy-dev@...; Prakash N N; Sethuraman, Hariharan; Prem sankar G
Subject: RE: [openflowplugin-dev] [sfc-dev] [groupbasedpolicy-dev] How can we fix multiple masters issue better for openflowplugin? I have a few questions – excuse me if they are trivial; - When the flows are merged, how can the actions be merged if they are conflicting? - Would there be a way for admins to configure the application priority during conflicts? - Wouldn’t it be better to maintain both flows without merging, but tagging the flows with some context info? For e.g., tagging all App1 related flows in all tables using a common cookie? Raghavan From: Edward Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@...]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 9:17 PM
To: Abhijit Kumbhare
Cc: alagalah; Brady Allen Johnson; Yang, Yi Y; sfc-dev@...; lacp-dev@...; openflowplugin-dev@...; Manohar SL; ovsdb-dev@...; groupbasedpolicy-dev@...; Prakash N N; Sethuraman, Hariharan; Venkataraghavan, C; Prem sankar G
Subject: Re: [openflowplugin-dev] [sfc-dev] [groupbasedpolicy-dev] How can we fix multiple masters issue better for openflowplugin? That depends... I really *do* want a discussion to look at the 'stack' approach rather than the 'arbiter' approach. (as a matter of personal opinion, I think the 'arbiter' approach is a dead end) On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote: Do we want to merge these 2 discussions or keep them separate? Also - it will be good to have some of these sessions earlier in the morning so that remote folks from India, etc. will be able to participate. e.g. there is a session on OpenFlow clustering which I believe Muthu plans to attend - and this OF Pipeline session that some others like Hema, etc. want to attend. So should these 2 sessions on 2 different mornings? On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Edward Warnicke <hagbard@...> wrote: I've got a session here: To look at solving this problem via a 'stack' oriented (rather than arbiter oriented solution) that I believe is quite in line with your ideas Keith, perhaps that would be a good venue for the discussion? It also seems to me that in addition to the two issues you listed above (table0 and co-existence) you also have 'handoff between stack layers' to work into On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 6:33 AM, alagalah <alagalah@...> wrote: BTW, we should include Tony Tkacik in these dicussions, as he and I had a good discussion on how we could approach this holistically as a community around the two big issues: - table0
- Pipeline co-existance (which I want to solve via namespacing with metadata and recirculation ID)
We should definitely propose this as an unconference session for the ODL Summit. I’m happy that this is a “baby steps” approach, as I’d like to test and validate my idea across both the GBP OfOverlay and SFCOFL2 pipelines, but Tony has a more broad longer term view which addresses a number of different issues (such as how to translate a generalised ideal OF pipeline onto a constrained hardware platform etc). Note: This doesn’t have to be just one session. There could be a discussion at a broader [OFP <-> consumers of …] level discussion, and a more tactical GBP/SFC/netvirt general pipeline discussion too. From: alagalah <alagalah@...>
Date: Friday, July 24, 2015 at 6:20 AM
To: Brady Allen Johnson <brady.allen.johnson@...>, "Yang, Yi Y" <yi.y.yang@...>, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...>
Cc: opendaylight sfc <sfc-dev@...>, "lacp-dev@..." <lacp-dev@...>, openflowplugin-dev <openflowplugin-dev@...>, Manohar SL <manohar.sl@...>, "groupbasedpolicy-dev@..." <groupbasedpolicy-dev@...>, "ovsdb-dev@..." <ovsdb-dev@...>, Gaurav Bhagwani <gaurav.bhagwani@...>, Prakash N N <prakash.n.n@...>, "Hariharan_Sethuraman@..." <Hariharan_Sethuraman@...>, Hema Gopalkrishnan <hema.gopalkrishnan@...>, "C_Venkataraghavan@..." <C_Venkataraghavan@...>, Prem sankar G <prem.sankar.g@...>, Thomas Bachman <bachman@...> Subject: Re: [sfc-dev] [groupbasedpolicy-dev] [openflowplugin-dev] How can we fix multiple masters issue better for openflowplugin? 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. From: Brady Allen Johnson <brady.allen.johnson@...>
Organization: Ericsson AB
Date: Friday, July 24, 2015 at 5:30 AM
To: "Yang, Yi Y" <yi.y.yang@...>, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...>
Cc: opendaylight sfc <sfc-dev@...>, "lacp-dev@..." <lacp-dev@...>, openflowplugin-dev <openflowplugin-dev@...>, Manohar SL <manohar.sl@...>, "groupbasedpolicy-dev@..." <groupbasedpolicy-dev@...>, "ovsdb-dev@..." <ovsdb-dev@...>, Gaurav Bhagwani <gaurav.bhagwani@...>, Prakash N N <prakash.n.n@...>, "Hariharan_Sethuraman@..." <Hariharan_Sethuraman@...>, Hema Gopalkrishnan <hema.gopalkrishnan@...>, "C_Venkataraghavan@..." <C_Venkataraghavan@...>, Prem sankar G <prem.sankar.g@...>, Thomas Bachman <bachman@...>, alagalah <alagalah@...>
Subject: Re: [sfc-dev] [groupbasedpolicy-dev] [openflowplugin-dev] How can we fix multiple masters issue better for openflowplugin? Yi,
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.
Regards,
Brady On 07/24/2015 04:48 AM, Yang, Yi Y wrote: Hi, Brady 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 J I’ll suggest two possible solutions later, we can discuss them here, and hope you can take them into Opendaylight Summit for more discussion. Yi,
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.
Regards,
Brady On 07/20/2015 09:36 AM, Yang, Yi Y wrote: Soory I can’t, because it is 0:00 am next day for me From: Abhijit Kumbhare [mailto:abhijitkoss@...]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 3:09 PM
To: Yang, Yi Y
Cc: Prem sankar G; Hema Gopalkrishnan; Hariharan_Sethuraman@...; lacp-dev@...; sfc-dev@...; C_Venkataraghavan@...; openflowplugin-dev@...; Manohar SL; Gaurav Bhagwani; ovsdb-dev@...; groupbasedpolicy-dev@...; 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@...> wrote: Ok, thanks, I can’t attend that in person, but we will have some representatives to attend. Yi, Abhijit, I have created a placeholder for this topic during ODL design discussion summit - https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Events:Be_Dev_Forum#OF_Pipeline_Conflict_resolution We can use this slot for further brainstorming around this topic. Regards, Prem 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. Regards, Hema. + lacp-dev From: openflowplugin-dev-bounces@... [mailto:openflowplugin-dev-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Abhijit Kumbhare
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 8:03 PM
To: Yang, Yi Y
Cc: ovsdb-dev@...; groupbasedpolicy-dev@...; sfc-dev@...; openflowplugin-dev@...
Subject: Re: [openflowplugin-dev] How can we fix multiple masters issue better for openflowplugin? Yi, 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@...> wrote: Hi, All 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: 1. Fix table conflict 2. Reduce number of tables: all the user scenarios have ingress and egress tables although they have different names or purposes 3. Fix multiple master/writer synchronization 4. Provide high level APIs for simplifying use for consumers 5. Optimization will be visible for all the users (APIs consumers) 6. Openflowplugin evolution or update will be invisible for all the users (API consumers) 7. You can list more items here if you can imagine J Welcome your great ideas and look forward to seeing we can bear fruit. GBP ==== Table 0: Port Security, Ingress Table 1: Ingress NAT Mapper Table 2: Source Mapper Table 3: Destination Mapper Table 4: Policy Enforcer Table 5: Egress NAT Mapper Table 6: External Mapper SFC === Table 0, Transport Ingress Table 1, Path Mapper Table 2, Next Hop Table 10, Transport Egress OVSDB Netvirt ============== Table 0: Classifier Table 10: Director Table 20: Distributed ARP Responder Table 30: DNAT for inbound floating-ip traffic Table 40: Egress Acces-control Table 50: Distributed LBaaS Table 60: Distributed Virtual Routing (DVR) Table 70: Layer 3 forwarding/lookup service Table 80: Layer2 rewrite service Table 90: Ingress Acces-control Table 100: SNAT for traffic accessing external network Table 110: Layer2 mac,vlan based forwarding
_______________________________________________
openflowplugin-dev mailing list
openflowplugin-dev@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev
_______________________________________________ sfc-dev mailing list sfc-dev@... https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc-dev
_______________________________________________
openflowplugin-dev mailing list
openflowplugin-dev@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev
|
