Open Stack

Hi Jay, To extend Ivar's response here, the core resources and core
plugin configuration does not change with the addition of these
extensions. The mechanism to implement the GBP extensions is via a
service plugin. So even in a deployment where a GBP service plugin is
deployed with a driver which interfaces with a backend that perhaps
directly understands some of the GBP constructs, that system would
still need to have a core plugin configured that honors Neutron's core
resources. Hence my earlier comment that GBP extensions are
complementary to the existing core resources (in much the same way as
the existing extensions in Neutron).

Thanks,
~Sumit.

On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Ivar Lazzaro <ivarlazzaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jay,
>
> You can choose. The whole purpose of this is about flexibility, if you want
> to use GBP API 'only' with a specific driver you just can.
> Additionally, given the 'ML2 like' architecture, the reference mapping
> driver can ideally run alongside by filling the core Neutron constructs
> without ever 'disturbing' your own driver (I'm not entirely sure about this
> but it seems feasible).
>
> I hope this answers your question,
> Ivar.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/08/2014 08:55 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
>>>
>>> The existing constructs will not change.
>>
>>
>> A followup question on the above...
>>
>> If GPB API is merged into Neutron, the next logical steps (from what I can
>> tell) will be to add drivers that handle policy-based payloads/requests.
>>
>> Some of these drivers, AFAICT, will *not* be deconstructing these policy
>> requests into the low-level port, network, and subnet
>> creation/attachment/detachment commands, but instead will be calling out
>> as-is to hardware that speaks the higher-level abstraction API [1], not the
>> lower-level port/subnet/network APIs. The low-level APIs would essentially
>> be consumed entirely within the policy-based driver, which would effectively
>> mean that the only way a system would be able to orchestrate networking in
>> systems using these drivers would be via the high-level policy API.
>>
>> Is that correct? Very sorry if I haven't explained clearly my question...
>> this is a tough question to frame eloquently :(
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -jay
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/data-center-virtualization/application-centric-infrastructure/index.html
>>
>>> On Aug 8, 2014 9:49 AM, "CARVER, PAUL" <pc2929 at att.com
>>> <mailto:pc2929 at att.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Wuhongning [mailto:wuhongning at huawei.com
>>>     <mailto:wuhongning at huawei.com>] wrote:
>>>
>>>      >Does it make sense to move all advanced extension out of ML2, like
>>>     security
>>>      >group, qos...? Then we can just talk about advanced service
>>>     itself, without
>>>      >bothering basic neutron object (network/subnet/port)
>>>
>>>     A modular layer 3 (ML3) analogous to ML2 sounds like a good idea. I
>>>     still
>>>     think it's too late in the game to be shooting down all the work
>>>     that the
>>>     GBP team has put in unless there's a really clean and effective way
>>> of
>>>     running AND iterating on GBP in conjunction with Neutron without
>>> being
>>>     part of the Juno release. As far as I can tell they've worked really
>>>     hard to follow the process and accommodate input. They shouldn't have
>>>     to wait multiple more releases on a hypothetical refactoring of how
>>>     L3+ vs
>>>     L2 is structured.
>>>
>>>     But, just so I'm not making a horrible mistake, can someone reassure
>>> me
>>>     that GBP isn't removing the constructs of network/subnet/port from
>>>     Neutron?
>>>
>>>     I'm under the impression that GBP is adding a higher level
>>> abstraction
>>>     but that it's not ripping basic constructs like network/subnet/port
>>> out
>>>     of the existing API. If I'm wrong about that I'll have to change my
>>>     opinion. We need those fundamental networking constructs to be
>>> present
>>>     and accessible to users that want/need to deal with them. I'm viewing
>>>     GBP as just a higher level abstraction over the top.
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>     OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>     <mailto: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
>