Dynamic Service Path Selection over Multiple Links between SFF and SF for Enhancing Service Stability
draft-kang-sfc-dynamic-path-selection-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | th.kang@kt.com , youngtae.han@kt.com, Sungsu Kim , EunKyoung Paik , Namgon Kim | ||
| Last updated | 2016-04-21 (Latest revision 2015-10-19) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
In this document, we use SF classification of 1)indispensible SF for packet delivery, allegedly mandatory SFs, such as NAT and 2)optional SFs that a packet can be delivered without them, such as Firewall and IDS. The nodes of SFC-enabled domain can be various. Different vendors make different types of equipments, and this causes performance issues. Considering this diversity, the kind of SFs can be in myriad form. Thus, we should distinguish some mandatory SFs from not mandatory SFs and treat distinctively. Mandatory SFs should be matched with higher-performance SFF to achieve high availability as well as lower the probability of failure. Above all, whether each SF is mandatory or optional should be registered in advance. Mandatory SFs are to allocated to relatively higher-performance, larger capacity, more stable SFFs. SFC constructed using this way of allocation becomes the path for packets and packets are transferred to classifier through C1 interface, and to SFF through C2 interface, respectively.
Authors
th.kang@kt.com
youngtae.han@kt.com
Sungsu Kim
EunKyoung Paik
Namgon Kim
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)