Subject: Re: [sfc] Question on draft-penno-sfc-yang-00

From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 21:28:41 +0000

Hi,

We updated the draft based on comments and implementation experience.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-sfc-yang-01

Thanks,

Reinaldo

From: Nicolas BOUTHORS <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 at 8:18 AM
To: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: [sfc] Question on draft-penno-sfc-yang-00

The model uses an IP address as a way to identify a Service Function. I assume that this address is for management and control point of view.

Otherwise it raises a couple of questions

- A service function could be reachable via different IP addresses as the traffic comes from different directions.
Would this be  in line with the specification of the service-function-chain container ?

- Also  a service function for example responsible to load balance traffic to other virtual service functions
could be best attached to a set of IP addresses on a private subnet.  So these addresses might not be usable
for say a management application to locate the service function.

So if those addresses are for management and control purposes, where should the addresses used to route the traffic fit in the model?