Open Stack

Hi Armando

I hear (hopefully right ☺) that we have an agreement that the SFC abstraction we want to follow (and that includes in my mind networking-sfc and OVN – pls feel free to correct me if wrong!) is use of NSH approach. This includes internal representation of the chain, support of metdata etc. it is not clear to me who is interested in supporting the wire protocol too, however given its IETF status, not sure why it would be considered “pollution”.

Igor Duarte has a proposal I believe he was working with the networking-sfc folks on

Thx

Uri (“Oo-Ree”)
C: 949-378-7568

From: Armando M. [mailto:armamig at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 11:06 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] support of NSH in networking-SFC



On 24 May 2016 at 22:07, Elzur, Uri <uri.elzur at intel.com<mailto:uri.elzur at intel.com>> wrote:
Hi Armando

Pls see below [UE]

Thx

Uri (“Oo-Ree”)
C: 949-378-7568<tel:949-378-7568>

From: Armando M. [mailto:armamig at gmail.com<mailto:armamig at gmail.com>]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 9:08 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] support of NSH in networking-SFC



On 20 May 2016 at 17:37, Elzur, Uri <uri.elzur at intel.com<mailto:uri.elzur at intel.com>> wrote:
Hi Armando, Cathy, All

First I apologize for the delay, returning from a week long international trip. (yes, I know,  a lousy excuse on many accounts…)

If I’m attempting to summarize all the responses, it seems like

•         A given abstraction in Neutron is allowed (e.g. in support of SFC), preferably not specific to a given technology e.g. NSH for SFC

•         A stadium project is not held to the same tests (but we do not have a “formal” model here, today) and therefore can support even a specific technology e.g. NSH (definitely better with abstractions to meet Neutron standards for future integration)

A given abstraction is allowed so long as there is enough agreement that it is indeed technology agnostic. If the abstraction maps neatly to a given technology, the implementation may exist within the context of Neutron or elsewhere.
[UE] I think we have agreement SFC is a needed abstraction

Having said that I'd like to clarify a point: you seem to refer to the stadium as a golden standard. The stadium is nothing else but a list of software repositories that the Neutron team develops and maintain. Given the maturity of a specific repo, it may or may not implement an abstraction with integration code to non open technologies. This is left at discretion of the group of folks who are directly in control of the specific repo, though it has been the general direction to strongly encourage and promote openness throughout the entire stack that falls under the responsibility of the Neutron team and thus the stadium.

[UE] carefully read (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312199/12/specs/newton/neutron-stadium.rst,unified) and hope I understand Stadium. All NSH patches that we’d like to support are OPEN. I’m still looking for the place where a restriction prevents networking-SFC form moving forward on NSH before all other external projects to OpenStack has completed their work. Pls see also reply to Tim Rozet

However,

•         There still is a chicken and egg phenomenon… how can a technology become main stream with OPEN SOURCE support  if we can’t get an OpenStack to support the required abstractions before the technology was adopted elsewhere??

o   Especially as Stadium, can we let Neutron to lead the industry, given broad enough community interest?

•         BTW,  in this particular case, there originally has been a direct ODL access as a NSH solution (i.e. NO OpenStack option), then we got Tacker (now an Neutron Stadium project, if I get it right) to support SFC and NSH, but we are still told that networking-sfc (another Neutron Stadium project ) can’t do the same….
I cannot comment for the experience and the conversations you've had so far as I have no context. All I know is that if you want to experiment with OpenDaylight and its NSH provider and want to use that as a Neutron backend you can. However, if that requires new abstractions, these new abstractions must be agreed by all interested parties, be technology agnostic, and allow for multiple implementation, an open one included. That's the nature of OpenStack.
[UE] thanks for this clarification! I think it means that now that we all agree SFC abstraction is needed and that NSH is an emerging standard and networking-sfc team agrees to support NSH – there should be no reason to wait. As Tim Rozet mentioned an ODL driver with explicit SFC support is WIP, so sounds like NSH  support in it should be a go!

So long the required support is not specific to NSH and the API is not polluted by implementation details specific to NSH.

•         Also regarding the  following comment made on another message in this thread, “As to OvS features, I guess the OvS ml is a better place, but wonder if the Neutron community wants to hold itself hostage to the pace of other projects who are reluctant to adopt a feature”, what I mean is again, that chicken and egg situation as above. Personally, I think OpenStack Neutron should allow mechanisms that are of interest / value to the networking community at large, to “ experiment with the abstraction” as you stated, independent of other organizations/projects…
I personally I see no catch-22 if you operate under the premises I stated above. If Neutron allowed to experiment with *any* mechanism without taking into consideration the importance of abstractions and community consensus, we as a community have failed, especially in relation to the aspect of interoperability.
[UE] but as stated above and on the ml, in this case where we have agreement on the specific SFC abstraction, are we in agreement that we can move without being held back by other projects e.g. OvS???

As I said, if the abstraction is leaking implementation details or it is unable to be fulfilled by a pure implementation platform then it should not be endorsed.

SOOO, is the bottom line that we agree that supporting NSH explicitly in networking-sfc can be added now?

I don't know what you mean by supporting NSH explicitly in networking-sfc. Can you be more specific? Do you intend via OpenDaylight? What would be the NSH provider?
[UE] sure. Building NSH specific api and structures inside networking-sfc project (requires upgrade to its v1 API) and supporting of the ODL driver with NSH support. ODL can be the provider and can be tested w Neutron+ Networking-sfc

Do you have a pointer for these iterations on top of the v1 API?


Thx

Uri (“Oo-Ree”)
C: 949-378-7568<tel:949-378-7568>

From: Armando M. [mailto:armamig at gmail.com<mailto:armamig at gmail.com>]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 5:14 PM
To: Cathy Zhang <Cathy.H.Zhang at huawei.com<mailto:Cathy.H.Zhang at huawei.com>>
Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] support of NSH in networking-SFC



On 13 May 2016 at 16:01, Cathy Zhang <Cathy.H.Zhang at huawei.com<mailto:Cathy.H.Zhang at huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi Uri,

Current networking-sfc API allows the user to specify the data path SFC encapsulation mechanism and NSH could be one of the encapsulation options.
But since OVS release has not supported the NSH yet, we have to wait until  NSH is added into OVS and then start to support the NSH encapsulation mechanism in the data path.

One can support NSH whichever way they see fit. NSH in OVS is not something Neutron can do anything about. Neutron is about defining abstractions that can apply to a variety of technologies and experiment with what open source component is available on the shelves. Anyone can take the abstraction and deliver whatever technology stack they want with it and we'd happily gather any feedback to iterate on the abstraction to address more and more use case.


AFAIK, it is the position of Neutron to have any OVS related new features developed inside the OVS community.

Thanks,
Cathy

From: Elzur, Uri [mailto:uri.elzur at intel.com<mailto:uri.elzur at intel.com>]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 3:02 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); Armando M
Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] support of NSH in networking-SFC

Hi Armando

As an industry we are working on SFC for 3 years or so (more?). Still to date, we are told we can’t get Neutron or even a Stadium project e.g. networking-SFC to support NSH (in IETF LC phase) because OvS has not supported NSH. Is this an official position of Neutron that OvS is the gold standard to support any new feature?

We have seen OvS support other overlays that are not ahead of VXLAN-gpe in the IETF.

Thx

Uri (“Oo-Ree”)
C: 949-378-7568<tel:949-378-7568>



__________________________________________________________________________
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>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__________________________________________________________________________
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>
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/20160525/5da7f0f6/attachment-0001.html>