<html><body>
<p><tt><font size="2">I had tried to address the comment on the review board where Carlos had raised the same issue. Should have posted here as well.</font></tt><br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2"><a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96393/">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96393/</a></font></tt><br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2">Patch Set 3:</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">Carlos, The plan is not to have multiple drivers for enforcing policies. At least not right now. With respect to using same config options by drivers, we can have a given group policy driver and possibly an ML2 mechanism driver use the same config namespace. Does this answer your questions?</font></tt><br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2">Best,</font></tt><br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2">Mohammad</font></tt><br>
<br>
<img width="16" height="16" src="cid:1__=0ABBF665DFC220018f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt="Inactive hide details for Sumit Naiksatam ---06/12/2014 01:10:30 PM---Hi Carlos, I noticed that the point you raised here had n"><font size="2" color="#424282" face="sans-serif">Sumit Naiksatam ---06/12/2014 01:10:30 PM---Hi Carlos, I noticed that the point you raised here had not been followed up. So</font><br>
<br>
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">From: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Sumit Naiksatam <sumitnaiksatam@gmail.com></font><br>
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">To: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>, </font><br>
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">Date: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">06/12/2014 01:10 PM</font><br>
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">Subject: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][group-based-policy] GP mapping driver</font><br>
<hr width="100%" size="2" align="left" noshade style="color:#8091A5; "><br>
<br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2">Hi Carlos,<br>
<br>
I noticed that the point you raised here had not been followed up. So<br>
if I understand correctly, your concern is related to sharing common<br>
configuration information between GP drivers, and ML2 mechanism<br>
drivers (when used in the mapping)? If so, would a common<br>
configuration file shared between the two drivers help to address<br>
this?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
~Sumit.<br>
<br>
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Carlos Gonçalves <mail@cgoncalves.pt> wrote:<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> On 27 May 2014, at 15:55, Mohammad Banikazemi <mb@us.ibm.com> wrote:<br>
><br>
> GP like any other Neutron extension can have different implementations. Our<br>
> idea has been to have the GP code organized similar to how ML2 and mechanism<br>
> drivers are organized, with the possibility of having different drivers for<br>
> realizing the GP API. One such driver (analogous to an ML2 mechanism driver<br>
> I would say) is the mapping driver that was implemented for the PoC. I<br>
> certainly do not see it as the only implementation. The mapping driver is<br>
> just the driver we used for our PoC implementation in order to gain<br>
> experience in developing such a driver. Hope this clarifies things a bit.<br>
><br>
><br>
> The code organisation adopted to implement the PoC for the GP is indeed very<br>
> similar to the one ML2 is using. There is one aspect I think GP will hit<br>
> soon if it continues to follow with its current code base where multiple<br>
> (policy) drivers will be available, and as Mohammad putted it as being<br>
> analogous to an ML2 mech driver, but are independent from ML2’s. I’m<br>
> unaware, however, if the following problem has already been brought to<br>
> discussion or not.<br>
><br>
> From here I see the GP effort going, besides from some code refactoring, I'd<br>
> say expanding the supported policy drivers is the next goal. With that ODL<br>
> support might next. Now, administrators enabling GP ODL support will have to<br>
> configure ODL data twice (host, user, password) in case they’re using ODL as<br>
> a ML2 mech driver too, because policy drivers share no information between<br>
> ML2 ones. This can become more troublesome if ML2 is configured to load<br>
> multiple mech drivers.<br>
><br>
> With that said, if it makes any sense, a different implementation should be<br>
> considered. One that somehow allows mech drivers living in ML2 umbrella to<br>
> be extended; BP [1] [2] may be a first step towards that end, I’m guessing.<br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Carlos Gonçalves<br>
><br>
> [1]<br>
> </font></tt><tt><font size="2"><a href="https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/neutron-ml2-mechanismdriver-extensions">https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/neutron-ml2-mechanismdriver-extensions</a></font></tt><tt><font size="2"><br>
> [2] </font></tt><tt><font size="2"><a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89208/">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89208/</a></font></tt><tt><font size="2"><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<br>
> </font></tt><tt><font size="2"><a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a></font></tt><tt><font size="2"><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<br>
</font></tt><tt><font size="2"><a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a></font></tt><tt><font size="2"><br>
</font></tt><br>
</body></html>