Service Function Chaining: Design Considerations, Analysis & Recommendations
draft-boucadair-chaining-design-analysis-00
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mohamed Boucadair , Ron Parker | ||
| Last updated | 2013-10-03 (Latest revision 2013-09-02) | ||
| Replaced by | draft-boucadair-sfc-design-analysis | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-boucadair-sfc-design-analysis | |
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
The objectives of this document are to analyze the various design options, and provide a set of recommendations to be followed during the design phase of the Service Function Chaining solution(s). Note: o The analysis does not claim to be exhaustive. The list includes a preliminary set of potential solutions; other proposals can be added to the analysis if required. o The analysis is still ongoing. The analysis text will be updated to integrate received comments and inputs. o Sketched recommendations are not frozen. These recommendations are provided as proposals to kick-off the discussion and to challenge them. o The analysis does not cover any application-specific solution (e.g., HTTP header) because of the potential issues inherent to (TLS) encrypted traffic. o The analysis will be updated to take into account the full set of SFC requirements.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)