Subject: [bmwg] Call for feedback: draft-mkonstan-nf-service-density-01

From: "Maciek Konstantynowicz (mkonstan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 20:18:06 +0000

Dear BMWG Contributors,

We would like to ask your view regarding draft-mkonstan-nf-service-density-01:

1. During the previous BMWG meetings [1] [2], there was some interest in parts of this draft:
   a. Feedback to date indicates a good interest in NFV service chaining / service topology benchmarking.
   b. However due to proliferation of options driving complexity, the effort should coalesce around few options of Linux Cloud integrations.
   c. One way to do it is to centre on network-centric LCMs adopted by the industry e.g. K8s CNIs and alike. (LCM, Life Cycle Management)

2. With point 1. in mind, we are interested to collaborate on the following:
   a. Qualify a set of K8s CNIs (or other network-centric LCMs) as an interesting set.
   b. Define a set of NFV service chain topology deployment scenarios, including resource allocation.
   c. Define benchmark methodology for performance/resource efficiency (what we call "service density") leveraging NFV benchmarking work to date i.e. TEST-009 (ETSI NFV).

See if this makes any sense to you :)

We do have a discussion slot regarding above in the IETF-109 BMWG meeting tomorrow, slides are available at [3].

Cheers,
Maciek

[1] minutes-105-bmwg, https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/minutes-105-bmwg-00
[2] notes-ietf-107-bmwg, https://etherpad.ietf.org:9009/p/notes-ietf-107-bmwg?useMonospaceFont=true
[3] slides for draft-mkonstan-nf-service-density-01, https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/slides-109-bmwg-network-function-service-density-00