Open Stack

Hi,

> - Harmonize the DB model
> - Ensure backward compatibility (e.g.: router:external and just
> 'external' on network should both work)

When moving L3 API to core, it would be better to clarify the meaning of "external".
I noticed recently that 'router:external' has two meaning:
(1) the network with router:external becomes the default gateway of a router,
(2) a public network when NATing (i.e., floating IP pool).

Now 'router:external' affects to both router and floating IP implementations,
and we cannot create a router with a default gateway and without NAT.
(It is not a problem when a router is a NAT router.)

I am not sure the original intention of 'router:external'.
If the original meaning of 'external' is (1), it can be achived by
introducing an attribute to control NAT (floating IP) is enabled/disable
(it is similar to enable_dhcp for a subnet).
If (2), it is better that router-gateway-set accepts a network without
'router:external'.

The important thing is the meaning of the attribute and
once it becomes core API we need to keep backward compatibility.
I hope this clarification helps the future enhancement of router features
such routing configuration.

Thanks,
Akihiro

>>>>> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:00:55 +0100
>>>>> From: Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Quantum] Re: L3 API blueprint for G3
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> the blueprint I had in mind has actually a fairly small scope.
> It should touch just the APIs side.
> 
> I'm writing the full spec, but basically the goal is:
> - Move the l3 methods interface into quantum_plugin_base_v2.py
>   * It will be kept as a separate class so that when L2 and L3 plugins
> will be split we won't have to split the base plugin class
> - Do not load anymore l3 APIs an extension, but move resources, and
> validators, into quantum/api/v2
>   * this requires ensuring all plugins supports L3 APIs.
> "NotImplementedExceptions" are forbidden in Quantum!
> - Harmonize the DB model
>   * ie: make 'external' just an attribute of the network object,
> without using an association table as we do now
>   * and adjust all the code which uses this attribute (danwent did a
> good job of encapsulating this in a few routines, so it should be
> easy)
>   * ... and write the corresponding migration scripts!
> - Ensure backward compatibility (e.g.: router:external and just
> 'external' on network should both work)
> - Remove 'extend_l3_network_dict', 'process_l3_xxxx' as we won't need
> them anymore. (Note: those are not actually related to the l3
> features, but rather to extension to l2 resources added by the l3
> apis)
> 
> I plan to leave quantum/db/l3_db as it is. I don't think it will be
> convenient to merge it into db_base_plugin_v2.QuantumDBPluginV2. This
> because it might make separation of l2/l3 plugins harder, and will
> create a behemoth class that we really don't need to have.
> 
> Summarizing, my opinion is that we probably can make progress on these
> two work items in parallel, as there's not a strict dependency.
> However, your input is more than welcome, especially as far as the
> changes to the plugin interface and the db support classes are
> concerned.
> 
> I shall have the definite spec ready for the next Quantum meeting. Is
> there a chance you could draft a full spec for your blueprint as well?
> 
> Salvatore
> 
> 
> On 11 January 2013 11:17, Bob Melander (bmelande) <bmelande at cisco.com> wrote:
> > Oops my mistake. Thanks for you keen eye. :-)
> >
> > Do you have any opinion about my suggestion?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bob
> >
> > From: Dan Wendlandt <dan at nicira.com>
> > Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> > <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> > Date: torsdag 10 januari 2013 19:47
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> > Subject: [openstack-dev] [Quantum] Re: L3 API blueprint for G3
> >
> > Adding Quantum to subject line to help with all of those using filters :)
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bob Melander (bmelande)
> > <bmelande at cisco.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Salvatore,
> >>
> >> Your "L3 API to core" blueprint
> >> (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/l3apis-into-core) is
> >> targeted for G3. Are you planning to implement it?
> >>
> >> I have made some comments to your blueprint regarding the case when the L3
> >> functionality would be provided by a service plugin (as proposed by this
> >> blueprint:
> >> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-l3-routing-plugin). I
> >> outline how the current L3 functionality can be provided either as separate
> >> L3 plugin or as now, provided by the core plugin (depending on the choice of
> >> the core plugin developer).
> >>
> >> How about if we try to get both your "L3 API to core" blueprint and the
> >> "L3 to plugin" blueprint implemented for G3? I'm willing to work on this to
> >> make it happen.
> >>
> >> / Bob
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Dan Wendlandt
> > Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com
> > twitter: danwendlandt
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev