Open Stack

Are these NSX routers *functionally* different?

What we're talking about here is a router which, whether it's distributed
or not, behaves *exactly the same*.  So as I say, maybe it's an SLA thing,
but 'distributed' isn't really user meaningful if the user can't actually
prove he's received a distributed router by using the APIs or seeing
traffic flow differently.

I think, by the names you're referring to, the NSX routers acutally have
different user visible behaviour, and that's a different matter entirely,
obviously you want, as a user, to choose one or the other.
-- 
Ian.


On 10 December 2013 23:21, Vasudevan, Swaminathan (PNB Roseville) <
swaminathan.vasudevan at hp.com> wrote:

>  Hi Nachi/Akihiro motoki,
>
> I am not clear.
>
> Today the L3 Service Plugin does not support the “service_type” attribute to define the provider option.
>
>
>
> Are we suggesting that we need to include the service_type for the L3 Service Plugin and then we can make use of the “service_type” attribute to distinguish between the “edge” and “distributed”.
>
>
>
>
>
> So if I understand correctly, a “provider” router will be an Edge router and a non-provider router will be a “distributed router”.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Swami
>
>
>
> >I'm +1 for 'provider'.
>
>
>
> 2013/12/9 Akihiro Motoki <mot... at da.jp.nec.com>:
>
> > Neutron defines "provider" attribute and it is/will be used in advanced
>
> > services (LB, FW, VPN).
>
> > Doesn't it fit for a distributed router case? If we can cover all services
>
> > with one concept, it would be nice.
>
> >
>
> > According to this thread, we assumes at least two types "edge" and
>
> > "distributed".
>
> > Though "edge" and "distributed" is a type of implementations, I think they
>
> > are some kind of "provider".
>
> >
>
> > I just would like to add an option. I am open to "provider" vs "distirbute"
>
> > attributes.
>
> >
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Akihiro
>
> >
>
> > (2013/12/10 7:01), Vasudevan, Swaminathan (PNB Roseville) wrote:
>
> >> Hi Folks,
>
> >>
>
> >> We are in the process of defining the API for the Neutron Distributed
>
> >> Virtual Router, and we have a question.
>
> >>
>
> >> Just wanted to get the feedback from the community before we implement and
>
> >> post for review.
>
> >>
>
> >> We are planning to use the “distributed” flag for the routers that are
>
> >> supposed to be routing traffic locally (both East West and North South).
>
> >> This “distributed” flag is already there in the “neutronclient” API, but
>
> >> currently only utilized by the “Nicira Plugin”.
>
> >> We would like to go ahead and use the same “distributed” flag and add an
>
> >> extension to the router table to accommodate the “distributed flag”.
>
> >>
>
> >> Please let us know your feedback.
>
> >>
>
> >> Thanks.
>
> >>
>
> >> Swaminathan Vasudevan
>
> >> Systems Software Engineer (TC)
>
> >> HP Networking
>
> >> Hewlett-Packard
>
> >> 8000 Foothills Blvd
>
> >> M/S 5541
>
> >> Roseville, CA - 95747
>
> >> tel: 916.785.0937
>
> >> fax: 916.785.1815
>
> >> email: swaminathan.vasude... at hp.com <mailto:swaminathan.vasude... at hp.com <swaminathan.vasude... at hp.com>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Swaminathan Vasudevan
>
> Systems Software Engineer (TC)
>
>
>
>
>
> HP Networking
>
> Hewlett-Packard
>
> 8000 Foothills Blvd
>
> M/S 5541
>
> Roseville, CA - 95747
>
> tel: 916.785.0937
>
> fax: 916.785.1815
>
> email: swaminathan.vasudevan at hp.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> 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/20131212/8ffed552/attachment.html>