[sfc-dev] [OpenDaylight Discuss] [lispflowmapping-dev] [groupbasedpolicy-dev] Honeycomb, App Coexistence, Overlay Layer... do we need meetings/calls

Edward Warnicke hagbard at gmail.com
Thu Aug 20 15:30:15 UTC 2015


I'm using table numbers as a mental standin for an independent applications
point of entry to their pipeline... not saying its the *only* or even
*best* way... but it makes a decent intellectual placeholder till we get a
better concrete suggestion :)

Ed

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Colin Dixon <colin at colindixon.com> wrote:

> So, what are we currently using to describe pipeline snippets? Table
> numbers?
>
> --Colin
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Curt Beckmann <beckmann at brocade.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Well, I’m still in **first thoughts** on this, so I welcome commentary
>> on these proto thoughts.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can expect that TTPs will have numerous APIs, and that these APIs could
>> (somehow) be grouped together, with the groups oriented toward layers.  Not
>> quite clear how layers are defined (not just “L2, L3…”).
>>
>>
>>
>> Seems like we don’t want multiple apps messing with the same resources in
>> a given device.  That is, I could imagine that a network might be divided
>> up topologically so that one app uses the Foo API on a portion of the
>> devices, and another app uses Foo on a different set of devices.  Yet
>> another app could use both Foo and Bar on some other population of devices.
>>
>>
>>
>> Device resources should be requested and “reserved” by apps.  Using TTPs
>> also suggests that the apps and the devices are maybe subject to
>> compatibility checking as well.  The compatibility checking seems (for some
>> reason?) slightly more static than the topology reservation stuff though…
>> Hmm.
>>
>>
>>
>> As for actions… We could look at how the TTP spec might need tweaks to
>> help grouping of resources?  Or maybe we begin by proposing reservation
>> APIs or resource (flow table) attributes?
>>
>>
>>
>> As I say, this conversation is useful to stir the pot.
>>
>>
>>
>> Curt
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Edward Warnicke [mailto:hagbard at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2015 10:30 PM
>> *To:* Curt Beckmann
>> *Cc:* Colin Dixon; Anil Vishnoi; discuss at lists.opendaylight.org; Florin
>> Coras -X (fcoras - AAP3 INC at Cisco); sfc-dev at lists.opendaylight.org;
>> groupbasedpolicy-dev at lists.opendaylight.org;
>> lispflowmapping-dev at lists.opendaylight.org; Prem sankar G
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [OpenDaylight Discuss] [lispflowmapping-dev] [sfc-dev]
>> [groupbasedpolicy-dev] Honeycomb, App Coexistence, Overlay Layer... do we
>> need meetings/calls
>>
>>
>>
>> Curt,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts on first *actions* we can take to experiment here?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Curt Beckmann <beckmann at brocade.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with this notion of carving up OpenFlow tables to support
>> different layer APIs.  There’s not yet any formal mechanism to
>> manage/configure/enforce that but I like this discussion as a way to start
>> thinking about it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Curt
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Colin Dixon [mailto:colin at colindixon.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2015 9:16 PM
>> *To:* Edward Warnicke
>> *Cc:* Anil Vishnoi; discuss at lists.opendaylight.org; Florin Coras -X
>> (fcoras - AAP3 INC at Cisco); sfc-dev at lists.opendaylight.org;
>> groupbasedpolicy-dev at lists.opendaylight.org;
>> lispflowmapping-dev at lists.opendaylight.org; Prem sankar G; Curt Beckmann
>> *Subject:* Re: [OpenDaylight Discuss] [lispflowmapping-dev] [sfc-dev]
>> [groupbasedpolicy-dev] Honeycomb, App Coexistence, Overlay Layer... do we
>> need meetings/calls
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure, so a table type pattern (TTP) is really designed to model a full
>> switch pipeline including tables, legal matches in those tables, legal
>> actions/instructions in those tables (and thus the allowed flow through
>> tables because of the goto table action), and some other metadata.
>>
>> I *think* you could have different layers or co-existing apps expose a
>> subset of a TTP and the broader TTP would represent the cross-app pipeline.
>> That would give you a common scratchpad in which apps could be chained.
>> There's even support for referencing tables by name instead of number so
>> that you can pull together the pipeline first and then assign numbers to
>> tables later.
>>
>> The YANG model for TTPs is here:
>>
>> https://github.com/opendaylight/ttp/blob/master/ttp-model/src/main/yang/ttp.yang
>>
>> The spec is here:
>>
>> https://www.opennetworking.org/images/stories/downloads/sdn-resources/onf-specifications/openflow/OpenFlow%20Table%20Type%20Patterns%20v1.0.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> --Colin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Edward Warnicke <hagbard at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Could you say a bit more about TTP?
>>
>>
>>
>> Might it make sense to use TTP as the 'registry' of subpiplines from
>> various layers?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Colin Dixon <colin at colindixon.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> +1. I'm very interested.
>>
>> As an aside, TTPs came up in the context of a few of these discussions,
>> but mostly application co-existence, at the summit. In essence, TTPs are a
>> way to model multi-table OpenFlow pipelines. Along those lines, the might
>> be useful in defining concrete, programmable, composable pipeline chunks.
>> They are also likely useful as a way for providing virtual pipelines which
>> can be transformed to actual pipelines in the switch. In fact, there are
>> ongoing efforts between the ONF, ODL the TTP project along those lines.
>>
>> --Colin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Edward Warnicke <hagbard at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The meeting for 7am on Thursday is set, you should be able to follow this
>> link to it:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.google.com/calendar/render#eventpage_6%7Ceid-b3VnYW1kZXU4bmhndmVuNHVoNWE1cG9pYzAgaDc5aGltYm9rcThhYXVyOWxlZDhvYzc5MGdAZw-1-0-
>>
>>
>>
>> But just in case, here is the webex info:
>>
>>
>>
>> When it's time, start the meeting from here:
>>
>>
>> https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/meetings/join?uuid=MDHJCXR45WFFOUDWYX9FPOR0VK-9VIB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Agenda
>>
>> This meeting does not have an agenda.
>>
>>
>>
>> Access Information
>>
>> Where: WebEx Online
>>
>> Meeting number: 198 700 967
>>
>> Meeting password: This meeting does not require a password.
>>
>> Host key: 262524 (Use this key in the meeting if you have made someone
>> else the host and then want to reclaim the host role.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Audio Connection
>>
>> 1-855-244-8681 Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada)
>>
>> 1-650-479-3207 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)
>>
>> Access code: 198 700 967
>>
>>
>>
>> Need more numbers or information?
>>
>> Check out toll-free calling restrictions:
>>
>> https://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Anil Vishnoi <vishnoianil at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Ed,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please include me as well.  Thursday works better for me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Anil
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Florin Coras -X (fcoras - AAP3 INC at
>> Cisco) <fcoras at cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1 on Thursday
>>
>>
>>
>> Florin
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *<lispflowmapping-dev-bounces at lists.opendaylight.org> on behalf
>> of "Vina Ermagan (vermagan)"
>> *Date: *Friday, August 7, 2015 at 9:03 PM
>> *To: *Edward Warnicke, Prem sankar G
>> *Cc: *"discuss at lists.opendaylight.org", "sfc-dev at lists.opendaylight.org",
>> "groupbasedpolicy-dev at lists.opendaylight.org", "
>> lispflowmapping-dev at lists.opendaylight.org"
>> *Subject: *Re: [lispflowmapping-dev] [sfc-dev] [groupbasedpolicy-dev]
>> Honeycomb, App Coexistence, Overlay Layer... do we need meetings/calls
>>
>>
>>
>> +1 on Thursday
>>
>>
>>
>> Vina
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Edward Warnicke <hagbard at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Friday, August 7, 2015 10:00 AM
>> *To: *Prem sankar G <prem.sankar.g at ericsson.com>
>> *Cc: *"discuss at lists.opendaylight.org" <discuss at lists.opendaylight.org>,
>> "sfc-dev at lists.opendaylight.org" <sfc-dev at lists.opendaylight.org>, "
>> groupbasedpolicy-dev at lists.opendaylight.org" <
>> groupbasedpolicy-dev at lists.opendaylight.org>, "
>> lispflowmapping-dev at lists.opendaylight.org" <
>> lispflowmapping-dev at lists.opendaylight.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: [sfc-dev] [groupbasedpolicy-dev] Honeycomb, App
>> Coexistence, Overlay Layer... do we need meetings/calls
>>
>>
>>
>> How would folks feel about 7am PST Tue or Thursday of next week for a
>> kickoff?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Prem sankar G <prem.sankar.g at ericsson.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Ed,
>>
>> +1 and would be interested to participate in all of these topics.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Prem
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* groupbasedpolicy-dev-bounces at lists.opendaylight.org [mailto:
>> groupbasedpolicy-dev-bounces at lists.opendaylight.org] *On Behalf Of *Edward
>> Warnicke
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 06, 2015 4:15 PM
>> *To:* discuss at lists.opendaylight.org;
>> lispflowmapping-dev at lists.opendaylight.org;
>> groupbasedpolicy-dev at lists.opendaylight.org;
>> sfc-dev at lists.opendaylight.org
>> *Subject:* [groupbasedpolicy-dev] Honeycomb, App Coexistence, Overlay
>> Layer... do we need meetings/calls
>>
>>
>>
>> At the ODL Design Summit, we had a series of discussions around:
>>
>>
>>
>> - App Coexistence via layered/stacked pipelines
>>
>> - Growing a proper overlay topology layer that could meet the needs of
>> various other layers (Policy, SFC, etc)
>>
>> - Honeycomb - building a distributed ODL agent out of ODL parts that
>> could run on the local server
>>
>>
>>
>> I've had several folks reach out to me unicast wanting to get involved in
>> one or more of these,
>>
>> and so I was curious if there was any interest or appetite for some kind
>> of a regular meeting/call/IRC meeting about them so we can coordinate
>> together.
>>
>>
>>
>> One of the interesting parts about all three of these is that they are
>> less 'A new project with a new repo' and more 'Initiatives for projects to
>> cross collaborate in interesting ways'.  There's work to be done, but its
>> often cross project work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.opendaylight.org
>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Anil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.opendaylight.org
>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/sfc-dev/attachments/20150820/85f8554e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the sfc-dev mailing list