<div dir="ltr">Salvatore, Kanzhe,<div><br></div><div style>I don't mind renaming ServiceGroup to ServiceOffering especially if it makes more sense to you :)</div><div style>I've updated the wiki.</div><div style><br>
</div><div style>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. </div><div style>Vendor choosing at plugin is analog of scheduling and it seems that we're going to have just too much of flexibility here.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Another solution to this could be Sumit's suggestion where we merge ServiceTypeProvider with ServiceOffering parameters.</div><div style>In fact as a first implementation step, I'd just leave ServiceTypeProvider as simple as just a pointer to driver class.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><i>> Conversely, if we go for directly specifying the service provider type when creating a LB resource (see wiki page), then one will always </i></div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><i>> be telling to the plugin which driver should be used.</i></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><i>> With this approach there would be no space for this use case, and probably also the concept of service group will become irrelevant.</i></div>
</div><div style>My impression was that ServiceOffering is grouping of services around additional parameters such as insertion mode or service quality.</div><div style>So to me it doesn't seem that ServiceOffering will be irrelevant in the case you're talking about.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Thanks,</div><div style>Eugene.</div><div style><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Sumit Naiksatam <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sumitnaiksatam@gmail.com" target="_blank">sumitnaiksatam@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I too feel that we could potentially simplify the model. Here is a potentially simpler mode/workflow:<div><a href="https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Quantum/ServiceTypeFramework#Simplified_model.2Fframework" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Quantum/ServiceTypeFramework#Simplified_model.2Fframework</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>Please let me know what you guys think.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>~Sumit.<div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Kanzhe Jiang <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kanzhe.jiang@bigswitch.com" target="_blank">kanzhe.jiang@bigswitch.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi Eugene,<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Kanzhe</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Salvatore Orlando <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sorlando@nicira.com" target="_blank">sorlando@nicira.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Youcef,<div><br></div><div>I seem to recall you already made this point a while ago.</div><div>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.</div>
<div>Note that this is different from the case where one chooses between vendor A and B by specifying different service offering.</div><div><br></div><div>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]).</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div>With this approach there would be no space for this use case, and probably also the concept of service group will become irrelevant.</div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Salvatore</div>
<div><br></div></font></span></div><div><div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 May 2013 23:09, Youcef Laribi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Youcef.Laribi@eu.citrix.com" target="_blank">Youcef.Laribi@eu.citrix.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Eugene, Salvatore,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thanks<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Youcef<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Salvatore Orlando [mailto:<a href="mailto:sorlando@nicira.com" target="_blank">sorlando@nicira.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 01, 2013 2:19 PM<br><b>To:</b> OpenStack Development Mailing List<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [openstack-dev] [Quantum][LBaaS] Service type framework: todo & cleanup<u></u><u></u></span></p><div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">Eugene,<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I quickly went through your wiki and I think most of it makes total sense to me.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I would just consider renaming "Service Groups" to "Service Offering" because it's less ambiguous.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">And as you know, steering the discussion onto service insertion kills productivity.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">On 1 May 2013 21:32, Eugene Nikanorov <<a href="mailto:enikanorov@mirantis.com" target="_blank">enikanorov@mirantis.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">Salvatore, folks,<u></u><u></u></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Quantum/ServiceTypeFramework" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Quantum/ServiceTypeFramework</a><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">May be if everyone is ok with this proposal then our meeting will be short (if we even need one) :)<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Eugene.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">
<u></u> <u></u></p>
<div><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Salvatore Orlando <<a href="mailto:sorlando@nicira.com" target="_blank">sorlando@nicira.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Eugene,<u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal">I did not see this message and I replied on the other post.<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">You've set the discussion on the right tracks with your first email.<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888">Salvatore<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
On 1 May 2013 15:04, Eugene Nikanorov <<a href="mailto:enikanorov@mirantis.com" target="_blank">enikanorov@mirantis.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">So folks,<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">How about meet tomorrow, Thursday, 10 AM PST at #quantum-lbaas and discuss these things?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Eugene.<u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">
<u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Sumit Naiksatam <<a href="mailto:sumitnaiksatam@gmail.com" target="_blank">sumitnaiksatam@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p></div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><div><p class="MsoNormal">Hi Eugene,<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">~Sumit.<u></u><u></u></p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Eugene Nikanorov <<a href="mailto:enikanorov@mirantis.com" target="_blank">enikanorov@mirantis.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Hi folks,<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">One of the major features that we need to implement during Havana (H-1 at best) is true flexible multivendor support.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Let's start with what we have on service types today:<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">1) Description of the feature: <a href="https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Quantum/ServiceInsertion" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Quantum/ServiceInsertion</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">2) Code: <a href="https://github.com/openstack/quantum/blob/master/quantum/db/servicetype_db.py" target="_blank">https://github.com/openstack/quantum/blob/master/quantum/db/servicetype_db.py</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b>I'd like to set service insertion problem aside and focus on service types as a way to choose vendor.</b><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">So, on terminology side we have the following enitities (from code and docs):<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">- Service Type - defines a set of service providers (plugins:drivers)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">- Service Definition - defines one service provider<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">- Service Class - a type of service (?!) (LB, FW, VPN)<u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div>
</blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
1) So, first of all terminology seems to be quite confusing, especially word "type" is overloaded.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I think we need to propose better names for the these entities just to simplify our thinking about the integration with services.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, my proposal would be: <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">- Service Type - LB, FW, VPN<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">- Service Type Provider - defines one service provider (former Service Definition) (alt: Service Type Definition)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">- Service Group - what used to be Service Type. (alt: Service Set, ??)<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Sumit: How about a top level "service_type" class (consistent with current definition) with attributes like:<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
- Category, e.g. LB, FW, VPN<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">- Vendor, e.g. XYZ<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">- 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)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">- Provider, name of the class which implements this service (one per type as you suggest later)<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Until agreed, I'll use old terminology.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">2) The relationship between Service Types and Service Definitions.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">It is not obvious (nowhere stated or enforced) but Service Type must have just one Service Definition of the same Service Class,<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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).<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">3) API calls dispatching. The most important question: whether or not to support multiple plugins per Service Class.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">In other words, whether to have several Service plugins (several lbaas plugins, for ex) loaded simultaneosly.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">My opinion is that we don't need that as multi-vendor support could be implemented more simple plugin-side drivers.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">To make this shorter, I'll skip explanation for now.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div><div><p class="MsoNormal">So in order to move forward I'd suggest we have a meeting with the following agenda:<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">1. Terminology<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
2. Service type framework refactoring.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">3. API calls dispatching: hints and control flow.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I'll prepare some suggestions/diagrams about this.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">We could have a meeting someday this week at 8:00 - 10:00 AM PST, late evening PST will also work for me.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Sumit: 8 - 10 AM PST sounds good to me! ;-)<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,<u></u><u></u></p></div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eugene.<u></u><u></u></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal">
<u></u> <u></u></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">_______________________________________________<br>OpenStack-dev mailing list<br><a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><u></u><u></u></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal">
<u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>_______________________________________________<br>OpenStack-dev mailing list<br><a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><u></u><u></u></p></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal">
<u></u> <u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>_______________________________________________<br>OpenStack-dev mailing list<br><a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><span><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Kanzhe Jiang<div>MTS at BigSwitch</div>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>