<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">I wanted to raise the question of whether to develop BGP dynamic routing in the Neutron repo or spin it out to as a stadium project. This question has been raised recently on reviews and in offline discussions. For those unfamiliar with
this work, BGP efforts in Neutron entail admin-only API’s for configuring and propagating BGP announcements of next-hops for floating IP’s, tenant networks, and host routes for each compute port when using DVR. As we are getting late in the Mitaka cycle,
I would like to be sure there is consensus on the approach for Mitaka. As I see it, we have 3 courses of action:<br>
<br>
1. Continue with development in the main repo without any intention of spinning out to a stadium project<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. Continue on the current development course for Mitaka while targeting a spin-out to a stadium project during the N cycle<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. Spin out to a stadium project immediately<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Each has pros and cons. This question seems to have arisen while looking at the sheer amount code being proposed, its place in the Neutron model, and questioning whether we really want to bring that code into Neutron. As such, continuing
with option 1 definitely requires us to come to some consensus. Let me be clear that I’m not opposed to any of these options, I’m simply looking for some guidance. With that said, if the end game is a stadium project I do question whether #2 makes sense.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-Ryan<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201621/">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201621/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/bgp-dynamic-routing">https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/bgp-dynamic-routing</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>