Open Stack

Salvatore, Kanzhe,

I don't mind renaming ServiceGroup to ServiceOffering especially if it
makes more sense to you :)
I've updated the wiki.

Regarding the workflow: I specifically made this a two step process to
avoid taking decision at plugin (which could be additional complex problem)
and put it onto User.
Vendor choosing at plugin is analog of scheduling and it seems that we're
going to have just too much of flexibility here.

Another solution to this could be Sumit's suggestion where we merge
ServiceTypeProvider with ServiceOffering parameters.
In fact as a first implementation step, I'd just leave ServiceTypeProvider
as simple as just a pointer to driver class.

*> Conversely, if we go for directly specifying the service provider type
when creating a LB resource (see wiki page), then one will always *
*> be telling to the plugin which driver should be used.*
*> With this approach there would be no space for this use case, and
probably also the concept of service group will become irrelevant.*
My impression was that ServiceOffering is grouping of services around
additional parameters such as insertion mode or service quality.
So to me it doesn't seem that ServiceOffering will be irrelevant in the
case you're talking about.

Thanks,
Eugene.



On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Sumit Naiksatam <sumitnaiksatam at gmail.com>wrote:

> I too feel that we could potentially simplify the model. Here is a
> potentially simpler mode/workflow:
>
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Quantum/ServiceTypeFramework#Simplified_model.2Fframework
>
> Please let me know what you guys think.
>
> Thanks,
> ~Sumit.
>
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Kanzhe Jiang <kanzhe.jiang at bigswitch.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Eugene,
>>
>> Thank you for the serviceType proposal. ServiceType, ServiceTypeProvider,
>> and InsertionMode make lots of sense. However, I have a hard time to
>> capture the meaning of ServiceGroup.
>> Salvatore's suggestion seems to be more that just a name change if I
>> understood correctly. ServiceOffering is a top-level object that consists
>> of serviceType, serviceTypeProvider and insertionMode. The user/tenant
>> workflow then becomes a one-step process, picking a serviceOffering from an
>> available list. A logic service is then created based on the selected
>> serviceOffering.
>>
>> Kanzhe
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Youcef,
>>>
>>> I seem to recall you already made this point a while ago.
>>> I've tried to look back at old email threads, and it seems the use case
>>> for a scenario like the one you describe would be when a given service
>>> type/group/offering can be either be realized to provider 'a' or 'b', in
>>> this case it would be the plugin to decide which driver to use, according
>>> to some plugin-specific logic that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
>>> Note that this is different from the case where one chooses between
>>> vendor A and B by specifying different service offering.
>>>
>>> If I got your use case correctly, then I'm ok with designing the feature
>>> in this way (actually I would have something like "LB": [VendorXDriver,
>>> VendorYDriver]).
>>>
>>> Conversely, if we go for directly specifying the service provider type
>>> when creating a LB resource (see wiki page), then one will always be
>>> telling to the plugin which driver should be used.
>>> With this approach there would be no space for this use case, and
>>> probably also the concept of service group will become irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Salvatore
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1 May 2013 23:09, Youcef Laribi <Youcef.Laribi at eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eugene, Salvatore,****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> To clarify my understanding of the concept of ServiceGroup (or
>>>> ServiceOffering to use Salvatore’s terminology), are you allowing for the
>>>> same ServiceType (e.g. LB) to be offered by multiple vendors  (e.g a
>>>> ServiceOffering could be { “LB”:”LBVendorXDriver”, “FW”:”FWVendorADriver”,
>>>> “LB”:”LBVendorYDriver”} ? And in this case is “step 2” in the “workflow for
>>>> a user” section about choosing one vendor for each service type if there is
>>>> more than one?****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Thanks****
>>>>
>>>> Youcef****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Salvatore Orlando [mailto:sorlando at nicira.com]
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 01, 2013 2:19 PM
>>>> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Quantum][LBaaS] Service type
>>>> framework: todo & cleanup****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Eugene,****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> I quickly went through your wiki and I think most of it makes total
>>>> sense to me.****
>>>>
>>>> I would just consider renaming "Service Groups" to "Service Offering"
>>>> because it's less ambiguous.****
>>>>
>>>> This concept, at least for reading, is made available to tenant.
>>>> Exposing it as an "Offering" of services that can be deployed makes more
>>>> sense.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> I see you also have two todos: for the first, I'd say let's keep it
>>>> open to future implementation with multiple plugins (if we don't do that,
>>>> we might end up in a pickle), for the second, I'd say it's a cool feature,
>>>> but probably not worth the hassle. ****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> I would keep the insertion model out for now; not because I do not
>>>> agree with it, but because we might incur the same problem we had with
>>>> Service Type, and also the LB API.****
>>>>
>>>> Since we did it without a backing implementation, we then had to tweak
>>>> it. We can always augment the service type once the service
>>>> insertion/chaining framework will be ready.****
>>>>
>>>> And as you know, steering the discussion onto service insertion kills
>>>> productivity.****
>>>>
>>>> I like the idea anyway - and we already proposed to include it into the
>>>> servicetypespec in Grizzly - for instance it could be used to say whether
>>>> the corresponding implementation is backed by a service VM, an ADC with
>>>> context, or whether it's a physical device attached at L2, and so on. *
>>>> ***
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> On the REST call dispatching section, I don't see anything wrong with
>>>> your idea, the only change I would propose is that when you create a VIP
>>>> you specify the service offering, not the service provider. You do not want
>>>> to expose that kind of detail.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> On 1 May 2013 21:32, Eugene Nikanorov <enikanorov at mirantis.com> wrote:*
>>>> ***
>>>>
>>>> Salvatore, folks,****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Friday also works for me. To have something concrete to discuss, I've
>>>> created a page with a summary of the ideas in my first email:****
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Quantum/ServiceTypeFramework****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> May be if everyone is ok with this proposal then our meeting will be
>>>> short (if we even need one) :)****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,****
>>>>
>>>> Eugene.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com>
>>>> wrote:****
>>>>
>>>> Eugene,****
>>>>
>>>> I did not see this message and I replied on the other post.****
>>>>
>>>> I will not be available tomorrow between 6AM PST and 1PM PST. Friday
>>>> would work for me, but honestly I think we might want to flesh out ideas
>>>> and terminology a little bit better offline before going into a meeting; I
>>>> think having a clearer picture will boost the productivity of the meeting.
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> You've set the discussion on the right tracks with your first email.***
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Salvatore****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> On 1 May 2013 15:04, Eugene Nikanorov <enikanorov at mirantis.com> wrote:*
>>>> ***
>>>>
>>>> So folks,****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> How about meet tomorrow, Thursday, 10 AM PST at #quantum-lbaas and
>>>> discuss these things?****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,****
>>>>
>>>> Eugene.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Sumit Naiksatam <
>>>> sumitnaiksatam at gmail.com> wrote:****
>>>>
>>>> Hi Eugene,****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for bringing this up. We tried to discuss some of these in the
>>>> "services chaining, insertion, and steering" session during the summit.
>>>> Based on the discussion and feedback (and also from implementing a
>>>> prototype involving multiple service "types") my responses inline.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ~Sumit.****
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Eugene Nikanorov <
>>>> enikanorov at mirantis.com> wrote:****
>>>>
>>>> Hi folks,****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> One of the major features that we need to implement during Havana (H-1
>>>> at best) is true flexible multivendor support.****
>>>>
>>>> There could be different ways of giving tenant ability to choose vendor
>>>> of requested loadbalancer, but we need to evaluate how service types could
>>>> help us on this way.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> The reason I'm writing this is that I'd like to make some terminology
>>>> cleanup and set up key design points to discuss and move forward.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Let's start with what we have on service types today:****
>>>>
>>>> 1) Description of the feature:
>>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Quantum/ServiceInsertion****
>>>>
>>>> 2) Code:
>>>> https://github.com/openstack/quantum/blob/master/quantum/db/servicetype_db.py
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> 3) seems to be framework is not used (and doesn't have respective CLI
>>>> code) so changing it would not be painfull if we want to.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> *I'd like to set service insertion problem aside and focus on service
>>>> types as a way to choose vendor.*****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> So, on terminology side we have the following enitities (from code and
>>>> docs):****
>>>>
>>>> - Service Type - defines a set of service providers (plugins:drivers)**
>>>> **
>>>>
>>>> - Service Definition - defines one service provider****
>>>>
>>>> - Service Class - a type of service (?!) (LB, FW, VPN)****
>>>>
>>>>  ****
>>>>
>>>> 1) So, first of all terminology seems to be quite confusing, especially
>>>> word "type" is overloaded.****
>>>>
>>>> I think we need to propose better names for the these entities just to
>>>> simplify our thinking about the integration with services.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> So, my proposal would be: ****
>>>>
>>>> - Service Type - LB, FW, VPN****
>>>>
>>>> - Service Type Provider - defines one service provider (former Service
>>>> Definition) (alt: Service Type Definition)****
>>>>
>>>> - Service Group - what used to be Service Type. (alt: Service Set, ??)*
>>>> ***
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Sumit: How about a top level "service_type" class (consistent with
>>>> current definition) with attributes like:****
>>>>
>>>> - Category, e.g. LB, FW, VPN****
>>>>
>>>> - Vendor, e.g. XYZ****
>>>>
>>>> - Insertion Model, e.g. L3, L2, Bump-in-the-wire, Tap (I know you
>>>> mentioned that you want to keep this aside for now, but I am stating it
>>>> here for completeness)****
>>>>
>>>> - Provider, name of the class which implements this service (one per
>>>> type as you suggest later)****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Until agreed, I'll use old terminology.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> 2) The relationship between Service Types and Service Definitions.****
>>>>
>>>> It is not obvious (nowhere stated or enforced) but Service Type must
>>>> have just one Service Definition of the same Service Class,****
>>>>
>>>> otherwise, Service Type is useless for API call dipatching. E.g. there
>>>> should be 1:1 mapping between Service Type and Service Definition for
>>>> certain Service Class.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Sumit: We also need a base service class definition that can be used
>>>> across services. This should support a contract for creating multiple
>>>> logical instances of the service (e.g. one more logical Firewalls
>>>> devices/instances as requested by a tenant). It should also support the
>>>> attributes required to help service insertion (since the service
>>>> implementor knows how the service will attach to the network).****
>>>>
>>>>  ****
>>>>
>>>> 3) API calls dispatching. The most important question: whether or not
>>>> to support multiple plugins per Service Class.****
>>>>
>>>> In other words, whether to have several Service plugins (several lbaas
>>>> plugins, for ex) loaded simultaneosly.****
>>>>
>>>> My opinion is that we don't need that as multi-vendor support could be
>>>> implemented more simple plugin-side drivers.****
>>>>
>>>> To make this shorter, I'll skip explanation for now.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Sumit: A complementary part of this discussion is the ability for one
>>>> plugin to support multiple services. We discussed this briefly during the
>>>> summit, and I believe we agreed to fix this in the current implementation.
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> So in order to move forward I'd suggest we have a meeting with the
>>>> following agenda:****
>>>>
>>>> 1. Terminology****
>>>>
>>>> 2. Service type framework refactoring.****
>>>>
>>>> 3. API calls dispatching: hints and control flow.****
>>>>
>>>> I'll prepare some suggestions/diagrams about this.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> We could have a meeting someday this week at 8:00 - 10:00 AM PST, late
>>>> evening PST will also work for me.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Sumit: 8 - 10 AM PST sounds good to me! ;-)****
>>>>
>>>>  ****
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,****
>>>>
>>>> Eugene.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> http://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****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> http://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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kanzhe Jiang
>> MTS at BigSwitch
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://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/20130502/b8a551a0/attachment.html>