Open Stack

Folks,

Currently there is work going on (in the scope of LBaaS initiative)
on changing quantum infrastructure so that it loads several plugins.
L3 plugin should fit in that new architecture with a fairly small amount of
changes.

Thanks,
Eugene.

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Gary Kotton <gkotton at redhat.com> wrote:

>  On 11/08/2012 03:33 PM, Bob Melander (bmelande) wrote:
>
> In the wake of the recent discussion about service insertion, which seems
> to have landed in a decision to make each type of service (like LBaaS, FW,
> …) a separate plugin, I want to raise the issue whether this approach
> shouldn't also be adopted for L3 router functionality. This is not the case
> now, where instead the server side is implemented as a L3_NAT_db_mixin
> class that basically each plugin inherits. The actual routing is
> implemented through the separate L3 agent (L3NATagent class) that relies on
> linux namespaces, the kernel IP forwarding functionality and IP tables.
>
>  My concern about this is the following: Suppose one would like to
> replace (or complement) that router implementation with something else,
> e.g., use a separate hardware-based router or add additional features like
> VRRP to the implementation.
>
>
> Yay! VRRP will save endless amount of problems with the HA that we have
> the with the layer 3 agents. It would be great if we could add an open
> source solution and it would be beneficial for OpenStack as a whole.
>
>
>   As long as the changes can be contained within the l3 agent (while
> honoring the normal interface), it is fairly simple to just replace the
> default one with the extended l3 agent in the deployment.
>
>
> Agreed. This is just a matter of implementing the API's and this could be
> done today.
>
>
>   However, if the desired functionality requires changes to the "server
> side", i.e.,  the L3_NAT_db_mixin class, the situation gets much more
> tricky since the mixin is essentially baked into the core plugin.
>
>
> I think that we need to discuss this further and see how we can provide a
> generic base to build upon.
>
>
>   A way around this problem could be to provide the l3 routing
> functionality as a separate plugin, just as there will be separate plugins
> for LBaaS, FW, etc. With L3 routing also as a separate plugin, it seems to
> me it would be simpler to provide different such implementations, largely
> independent of (L2) core plugin but also to introduce additional L3
> specific extensions.
>
>
> It is a nice idea. We just need to ensure that we support the current l3
> functionality.
>
>
>  What is your view on this?
>
>  / Bob
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing listOpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.orghttp://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20121108/05cfc64c/attachment.html>