[openstack-dev] [neutron] Group-based Policy Sub-team Meetings
s3wong at midokura.com
Wed Nov 13 16:36:52 UTC 2013
So no meeting this Thursday?
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery)
<kmestery at cisco.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 8:58 AM, "Stein, Manuel (Manuel)" <manuel.stein at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
>> I'm afraid your meeting vanished from the Meetings page  when user amotiki reworked neutron meetings ^.^
>> Is the meeting for Thu 1600 UTC still on?
> Ack, thanks for the heads up here! I have re-added the meeting. I only heard
> back from one other person other than yourself, so at this point I'm inclined
> to wait until next week to hold our first meeting unless I hear back from others.
>> A few heads-up questions (couldn't attend the HK design summit Friday meeting):
>> 1) In the summit session Etherpad , ML2 implementation mentions insertion of arbitrary metadata to hint to underlying implementation. Is that (a) the plug-ing reporting its policy-bound realization? (b) the user further specifying what should be used? (c) both? Or (d) none of that but just some arbitrary message of the day?
> I believe that would be (a).
>> 2) Would policies _always_ map to the old Neutron entities?
>> E.g. when I have policies in place, can I query related network/port, subnet/address, router elements on the API or are there no equivalents created? Would the logical topology created under the policies be exposed otherwise? for e.g. monitoring/wysiwyg/troubleshoot purposes.
> No, this is up to the plugin/MechanismDriver implementation.
>> 3) Do the chain identifier in your policy rule actions match to "Service Chain UUID" in Service Insertion, Chaining and API 
> That's one way to look at this, yes.
>> 4) Are you going to describe L2 services the way group policies work? I mean, why would I need a LoadBalancer or Firewall instance before I can insert it between two groups when all that load balancing/firewalling requires is nothing but a policy for group communication itself? - regardless the service instance used to carry out the service.
> These are things I'd like to discuss at the IRC meeting each week. The goal
> would be to try and come up with some actionable items we can drive towards
> in both Icehouse-1 and Icehouse-2. Given how close the closing of Icehouse-1
> is, we need to focus on this very fast if we want to have a measurable impact in
>> Best, Manuel
>>  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings#Neutron_Group_Policy_Sub-Team_Meeting
>>  https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Group_Based_Policy_Abstraction_for_Neutron
>>  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fmCWpCxAN4g5txmCJVmBDt02GYew2kvyRsh0Wl3YF2U/edit#
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Kyle Mestery (kmestery) [mailto:kmestery at cisco.com]
>>> Sent: Montag, 11. November 2013 19:41
>>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Group-based Policy
>>> Sub-team Meetings
>>> Hi folks! Hope everyone had a safe trip back from Hong Kong.
>>> Friday afternoon in the Neutron sessions we discussed the
>>> "Group-based Policy Abstraction" BP . It was decided we
>>> would try to have a weekly IRC meeting to drive out further
>>> requirements with the hope of coming up with a list of
>>> actionable tasks to begin working on by December.
>>> I've tentatively set the meeting  for Thursdays at 1600
>>> UTC on the #openstack-meeting-alt IRC channel. If there are
>>> serious conflicts with this day and time, please speak up
>>> soon. Otherwise, we'll host our first meeting on Thursday this week.
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
More information about the OpenStack-dev