|
Edward Warnicke <hagbard@...>
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 the discussion.
Ed
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?
Yi,
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
|
|
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 the discussion.
Ed
|
|
Edward Warnicke <hagbard@...>
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)
Ed
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?
|
|
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
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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
|
|
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
|
|
Edward Warnicke <hagbard@...>
Raghavan,
You are describing questions relate to the 'arbiter' solution to coexistence of applications. Having watched attempts at solving those solutions for years I have come to personally be of the opinion that:
a) There are no good solutions to those problems - the entire approach of 'merging' flows outside of a monolithic application is unlikely to work b) I strongly suspect application authors will be unwilling to accept voluntarily an 'arbiter' that could alter or drop their requested flows in ways that might adversely effect their application.
Which is to say... I think that trying to work at the 'assembly language' level (flows) to solve coexistence is to granular to make meaningful usable progress.
What I am proposing is that we instead 'uplevel' coexistence to the 'stack' layer. We are all familiar with legacy networks stack (L4, L3, L2 etc). Clearly that particular choice of stack is not what we would choose for SDN. But imagine something *roughly* like this:
1) Each layer in the new 'stack' (Policy, SFC, Overlay) gets its own set of tables for its pipeline. 2) We have a set of *simple* *clearly defined* rules for handoff (might be as simple as the 'Policy' layer being able to get the first table in the SFC layer and using a GOTO table to punt to that next pipeline).
No arbiter is merging (dropping or rewriting) flows. An implementation for a pipeline gets the flows they ask for. But it allows for composition of independent application pipelines.
*This* approach (especially with some of the neat ideas Keith has to make it even simpler and easier, which I will leave to him to describe) is something that I believe personally we *can* make work, and that I believe *can* get voluntary adoption.
Ed
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:16 AM, <C_Venkataraghavan@...> wrote:
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
|
|
Edward Warnicke <hagbard@...>
Again... I don't believe 'merging' flows with an 'arbiter' is the right solution... these problems are a symptom of choosing the 'arbiter' approach and go away when you make different choices about app coexistence (of course, I have no doubt we will see other interesting challenges with the 'stack' approach ;) ).
Ed
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 12:52 AM, <Hariharan_Sethuraman@...> wrote: 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@...]
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
|
|
Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Abhijit Kumbhare [mailto:abhijitkoss@...]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 11:18 PM
To: Edward Warnicke
Cc: alagalah; Brady Allen Johnson; Yang, Yi Y; sfc-dev@...; lacp-dev@...; openflowplugin-dev@...; Manohar SL; ovsdb-dev@...; groupbasedpolicy-dev@...; Prakash
N N; Hariharan_Sethuraman@...; C_Venkataraghavan@...; Prem sankar G
Subject: Re: [openflowplugin-dev] [sfc-dev] [groupbasedpolicy-dev] How can we fix multiple masters issue better for openflowplugin?
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
|
|
Sounds good - but I have a scheduling request to Phil or whoever arranging the schedule. We have a clustering session continued at 2:15 pm on Thursday. Also Ed is hosting a session solving the same or a similar problem with a different solution (Coexistence of multiple projects in the same pipeline - Ed Warnicke) between 3:30-4:15 pm on Thursday. It will be good to conclude that topic on Thursday and then tackle this on Friday morning (say the 9:45 am session). In that case people from the India team may be able to join (as opposed to afternoon sessions).
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Hi, Guys
I noticed I was drafted as leader for this discussion
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Events:Be_Dev_Forum#OF_Pipeline_Conflict_resolution, but unfortunately I can’t make it because I won’t travel to US. Please
Abhijit can help host it.
I drafted a wiki page in
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OF_pipeline which includes two implemention options I sugguest, you can take them into discussion. I can dial in if this event can provide WebEx and time is ok to
China.
From: Abhijit Kumbhare [mailto:abhijitkoss@...]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 11:18 PM
To: Edward Warnicke
Cc: alagalah; Brady Allen Johnson; Yang, Yi Y; sfc-dev@...; lacp-dev@...; openflowplugin-dev@...; Manohar SL; ovsdb-dev@...; groupbasedpolicy-dev@...; Prakash
N N; Hariharan_Sethuraman@...; C_Venkataraghavan@...; Prem sankar G
Subject: Re: [openflowplugin-dev] [sfc-dev] [groupbasedpolicy-dev] How can we fix multiple masters issue better for openflowplugin?
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
|
|
Manohar SL <manohar.sl@...>
Friday Morning would be really great
J
We can definitely join from BLR/India.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Abhijit Kumbhare [mailto:abhijitkoss@...]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 9:21 AM
To: Yang, Yi Y; Philip Robb
Cc: Edward Warnicke; alagalah; Brady Allen Johnson; sfc-dev@...; lacp-dev@...; openflowplugin-dev@...; Manohar SL; ovsdb-dev@...; groupbasedpolicy-dev@...;
Prakash N N; Hariharan_Sethuraman@...; C_Venkataraghavan@...; Prem sankar G
Subject: Re: [openflowplugin-dev] [sfc-dev] [groupbasedpolicy-dev] How can we fix multiple masters issue better for openflowplugin?
Sounds good - but I have a scheduling request to Phil or whoever arranging the schedule. We have a clustering session continued at 2:15 pm on Thursday. Also Ed is hosting a session solving the same or a similar problem with a different
solution (Coexistence of multiple projects in the same pipeline - Ed Warnicke) between 3:30-4:15 pm on Thursday. It will be good to conclude that topic on Thursday and then tackle this on Friday morning (say the 9:45 am session). In that case people from the
India team may be able to join (as opposed to afternoon sessions).
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Hi, Guys
I noticed I was drafted as leader for this discussion
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Events:Be_Dev_Forum#OF_Pipeline_Conflict_resolution, but unfortunately I can’t make it because I won’t travel to US. Please
Abhijit can help host it.
I drafted a wiki page in
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OF_pipeline which includes two implemention options I sugguest, you can take them into discussion. I can dial in if this event can provide WebEx
and time is ok to China.
From:
Abhijit Kumbhare [mailto:abhijitkoss@...]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 11:18 PM
To: Edward Warnicke
Cc: alagalah; Brady Allen Johnson; Yang, Yi Y;
sfc-dev@...;
lacp-dev@...;
openflowplugin-dev@...; Manohar SL;
ovsdb-dev@...;
groupbasedpolicy-dev@...; Prakash N N;
Hariharan_Sethuraman@...; C_Venkataraghavan@...; Prem sankar G
Subject: Re: [openflowplugin-dev] [sfc-dev] [groupbasedpolicy-dev] How can we fix multiple masters issue better for openflowplugin?
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
|
|
Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
It will be better if time is friendly for EU and China and India, please forward WebEx link to maillist when it is available.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Manohar SL [mailto:manohar.sl@...]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 11:53 AM
To: Abhijit Kumbhare; Yang, Yi Y; Philip Robb
Cc: Edward Warnicke; alagalah; Brady Allen Johnson; sfc-dev@...; lacp-dev@...; openflowplugin-dev@...; ovsdb-dev@...; groupbasedpolicy-dev@...; Prakash N N;
Hariharan_Sethuraman@...; C_Venkataraghavan@...; Prem sankar G
Subject: RE: [openflowplugin-dev] [sfc-dev] [groupbasedpolicy-dev] How can we fix multiple masters issue better for openflowplugin?
Friday Morning would be really great
J
We can definitely join from BLR/India.
From: Abhijit Kumbhare [mailto:abhijitkoss@...]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 9:21 AM
To: Yang, Yi Y; Philip Robb
Cc: Edward Warnicke; alagalah; Brady Allen Johnson;
sfc-dev@...;
lacp-dev@...;
openflowplugin-dev@...; Manohar SL;
ovsdb-dev@...;
groupbasedpolicy-dev@...; Prakash N N;
Hariharan_Sethuraman@...; C_Venkataraghavan@...; Prem sankar G
Subject: Re: [openflowplugin-dev] [sfc-dev] [groupbasedpolicy-dev] How can we fix multiple masters issue better for openflowplugin?
Sounds good - but I have a scheduling request to Phil or whoever arranging the schedule. We have a clustering session continued at 2:15 pm on Thursday. Also Ed is hosting a session solving the same or a similar problem
with a different solution (Coexistence of multiple projects in the same pipeline - Ed Warnicke) between 3:30-4:15 pm on Thursday. It will be good to conclude that topic on Thursday and then tackle this on Friday morning (say the 9:45 am session). In that case
people from the India team may be able to join (as opposed to afternoon sessions).
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Hi, Guys
I noticed I was drafted as leader for this discussion
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Events:Be_Dev_Forum#OF_Pipeline_Conflict_resolution, but unfortunately I can’t make it because I won’t travel to US. Please
Abhijit can help host it.
I drafted a wiki page in
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OF_pipeline which includes two implemention options I sugguest, you can take them into discussion. I can dial in if this event can provide WebEx
and time is ok to China.
From: Abhijit
Kumbhare [mailto:abhijitkoss@...]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 11:18 PM
To: Edward Warnicke
Cc: alagalah; Brady Allen Johnson; Yang, Yi Y;
sfc-dev@...;
lacp-dev@...;
openflowplugin-dev@...; Manohar SL;
ovsdb-dev@...;
groupbasedpolicy-dev@...; Prakash N N;
Hariharan_Sethuraman@...; C_Venkataraghavan@...; Prem sankar G
Subject: Re: [openflowplugin-dev] [sfc-dev] [groupbasedpolicy-dev] How can we fix multiple masters issue better for openflowplugin?
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
|
|
