Sorry for the short notice, but was wondering if I could get a mention for putting together a NETLINK project proposal and gauging interest. 

I know of at least 4 folks:

• me, Matt Johnson, Frederick Kautz, Christopher Liljenstolpe.

The idea would be to create a gdoc/unlinked wiki page to iterate on the proposal (eschewing more meetings) and I may set up an “unofficial” #fdio-netlink IRC channel if folks would prefer to try and use that to discuss.

Thanks.

_______________________________________________
tsc mailing list
tsc@...
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/tsc

Dear TSC,

Overlay Network Engine (ONE) proposed a project on 03/07/2016:

https://lists.fd.io/pipermail/tsc/2016-March/000043.html

https://lists.fd.io/pipermail/project-lifecycle/2016-March/000000.html

I would like to request a creation review for Overlay Network Engine on 03/24/2016.

Thank you,

Vina Ermagan

_______________________________________________
tsc mailing list
tsc@...
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/tsc

I think this is all good.

If we keep the context that VPP is a dataplane, that needs to interface with a control plane it's all good.

Then things like SF proxy/bypass become use-cases for individual features such as NSI decrement.

It's possible in the future NSH could be used for other use cases, but for now, the dataplane features enabling SFC support are a great start

For example, we may not explicitly be doing any SFC OAM Rfc but instead providing explicit  features that enable it as a use case.

It may seem like sophistry but I assure you it's not. Many (all) the SFC rfcs require both control and data plane features. As such, the dataplane can provide the enabling features, and commensurate API to the control plane, and thats what we should be after.

In short, we treat things like SFC RFCs as use cases to support rather than complete compliance (we would be compliant with the data plane portions)

Hope that makes sense

On Mar 6, 2016 4:32 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@...> wrote:

With regard to the service functions, I beliee we agree that service
functions enabled and assisted by VPP is in scope for the entirety of
fd.io.  And is useful.

I have not done much project creration in modern open soruce software,
but it seems to me that the scope is only useful if we keep it bounded.
  Given the broad range of service functions taht can leverage VPP (and
may or may not choose to tie to SFC), my gut feel is to keep the line as
currently drawn.  But folks with more experience can slap me upside the
head.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/6/16 7:14 PM, Zhou, Danny wrote:
> More comments inline.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@...]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2016 11:38 PM
>> To: Zhou, Danny; Jim Guichard (jguichar); tsc@...
>> Cc: Ed Warnicke (eaw); Gasparakis, Joseph; Keith Burns (krb);
>> afredette@...; therbert@...; J.Hendergart@...; Emran
>> Chaudhry (emran); markus.magnusson@...;
>> hakan.jonsson@...; ashlee@...; Jan Medved
>> (jmedved)
>> Subject: Re: Project Proposal for NSH-Based Service Function Chaining
>>
>> Comments in line.
>> Thank you for the suggestions.
>>
>> On 3/6/16 3:17 AM, Zhou, Danny wrote:
>>> Hi Jim,
>>>
>>> I have a few comments below after reviewing the proposal:
>>>
>>> 1)Do we need to add a bullet mentioning to-be-supported NSH transport,
>>> such as VxLAN-GPE, GRE and Ethernet. I think VxLAN-GPE and GRE are
>>> mandatory, and Ethernet is optional.
>>
>> We started out by putting a list of the detailed encaps in the charter.
>>    Ed then pointed out that the charter is the scope, not the release plan.  The
>> question of which encaps to do first / later / never is a release plan question, so
>> we removed the details.  We do need to do a release plan.  I expect that which
>> encaps wil be fully supported at first will depend upon which ones people are
>> interested in making work.
>>    From a scope perspective, any and all encaps are in scope.  Thus, we left the
>> bullet under Forwarding rather vague.
>>
>
> Ok, makes sense to me now. Thanks.
>
>>>
>>> 2)How about add "Support NSH Timestamping" to the miscellaneous section.
>>> We have a DPDK based PoC to implement IETF draft
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-browne-ietf-sfc-nsh-timestamp-00 per
>>> customer requirement about breakdown of end-to-end SFC latency to
>>> diagnostic potentiation performance issue. It is based on MD Type 2 so
>>> should be a middle term feature, but like NSH traceroute it will be
>>> very useful in the production environment.
>>
>> Maybe, following the logic above, we should reword the first bullet under
>> miscellaneous to be NSH OAM support, which would include in scope work on
>> both traceroute and timestamping, as well as other OAM work we may want to
>> support?
>>
>
> NSH OAM support covers too many different features (some of them will be submitted
> to IETF SFC working group as new drafts in the future), unlike NSH transport case above
> which implicitly points out supported transport type as defined in the NSH draft. We could
> mention a OAM framework where those individual OAM features could fit it.
>
>>>
>>> 3)Can we add "Support TCP proxy for symmetric L4 flows". Though this
>>> feature depends on VPP to add L4 protocol, it will be very useful for
>>> including those stateful L4-l7 network services to SFC in the long term.
>>
>> This looks like it would cause scope creep into the various service functions that
>> people want to support using VPP.  I am not opposed to fd.io doing such work.  I
>> even think it is useful.  I am unclear whether that belongs in this project, or some
>> other affiliated project.  (The charter talks about the ability to create groups of
>> projects for coordination, which would seem applicable when we get there.)
>>
>
> There are four kinds of components in NSH dataplanes: Classifier, SFF, NSH-proxy and SF.
> Obviously, the current scope covers first three but not the SF one. The basic feature NSH manipulation
> feature such as Decrement SI for SF use case should be easily added, even though it is not mentioned
> in the scope. The TCP proxy such as L4-L7 load balancer, is widely used in in Cloud and Telco environment
> as a SF in the SFC.
>
> Do we position NSH SFC to cover SF as well? If we position VPP itself as SF, at least its currently available
> code only support coupled VxLAN-GPE and NSH header push/pop, and there is no way to decrement SI
> as well as support stateful SFs. I was hoping the NSH SFC project could fill the gap.
>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>>>
>>> -Danny
>>>
>>> *From:*Jim Guichard (jguichar) [mailto:jguichar@...]
>>> *Sent:* Friday, March 4, 2016 11:44 PM
>>> *To:* tsc@...
>>> *Cc:* Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...>; Gasparakis, Joseph
>>> <joseph.gasparakis@...>; Keith Burns (krb) <krb@...>;
>>> afredette@...; therbert@...; J.Hendergart@...; Emran
>>> Chaudhry (emran) <emran@...>; Joel M. Halpern
>>> <jmh@...>; markus.magnusson@...;
>>> hakan.jonsson@...; Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@...>;
>>> ashlee@...; Jan Medved (jmedved) <jmedved@...>;
>>> Jim Guichard (jguichar) <jguichar@...>
>>> *Subject:* Project Proposal for NSH-Based Service Function Chaining
>>>
>>> Please accept this project proposal for NSH-based Service Function
>>> Chaining for consideration. We would like to request scheduling for
>>> the first TSC meeting after 2 weeks have passed to allow for public review.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://wiki.fd.io/view/Project_Proposals/NSH_SFC
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>