[openstack-dev] [Nova][Neutron] Linuxbridge as the default in DevStack [was: Status of the nova-network to Neutron migration work]

Fox, Kevin M Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov
Fri Apr 17 19:27:30 UTC 2015

No, the complaints from ops I have heard even internally, which I think is being echo'd here is "I understand how linux bridge works, I don't opensvswitch". and "I don't want to be bothered to learn to debug openvswitch because I don't think we need it".

If linux bridge had feature parity with openvswitch, then it would be a reasonable argument or if the users truly didn't need the extra features provided by openvswitch/naas. I still assert though, that linux bridge won't get feature parity with openvswitch and the extra features are actually critical to users (DVR/NaaS), so its worth switching to opevnswitch and learning how to debug it. Linux Bridge is a nonsolution at this point. :/ So is keeping nova-network around forever. :/ But other then requiring some more training for ops folks, I think Neutron can suit the rest of the use cases these days nova-network provided over neutron. The sooner we can put the nova-network issue to bed, the better off the ecosystem will be. It will take a couple of years for the ecosystem to settle out to deprecating it, since a lot of clouds take years to upgrade and finally put the issue to bed. Lets do that sooner rather then later so a couple of years from now, we're done. :/


From: Kevin Benton [blak111 at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 11:49 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Neutron] Linuxbridge as the default in DevStack [was: Status of the nova-network to Neutron migration work]

I definitely understand that. But what is the major complaint from operators? I understood that quote to imply it was around Neutron's model of self-service networking.

If the main reason the remaining Nova-net operators don't want to use Neutron is due to the fact that they don't want to deal with the Neutron API, swapping some implementation defaults isn't really going to get us anywhere on that front.

It's an important distinction because it determines what actionable items we can take (e.g. what Salvatore mentioned in his email about defaults). Does that make sense?

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org<mailto:fungi at yuggoth.org>> wrote:
On 2015-04-17 10:55:19 -0700 (-0700), Kevin Benton wrote:
> I understand. What I'm saying is that switching to Linux bridge
> will not change the networking model to 'just connect everything
> to a simple flat network'. All of the complaints about
> self-service networking will still hold.

And conversely, swapping simple bridge interfaces for something else
still means problems are harder to debug, whether or not you're
stuck with self-service networking features you're not using.
Jeremy Stanley

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>

Kevin Benton
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150417/847ef680/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list