Open Stack

It might be because of the wording used, but it seems to me that you're
making it sound like the group policy effort could have been completely
orthogonal to neutron as we know it now.

What I understood is that the declarative abstraction offered by group
policy could do without any existing neutron entity leveraging "native"
drivers, but can actually be used also with existing neutron plugins
through the mapping driver - which will provide a sort of backward
compatibility. And still in that case I'm not sure one would be able to use
"traditional" neutron API (or "legacy" as it has been called), since I
don't know if the mapping driver is bidirectional.

I know this probably stems from my ignorance on the subject - I had
unfortunately very little time to catch-up with this effort in the past
months.

Salvatore

On 8 August 2014 18:49, Ivar Lazzaro <ivarlazzaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jay,
>
> You can choose. The whole purpose of this is about flexibility, if you
> want to use GBP API 'only' with a specific driver you just can.
> Additionally, given the 'ML2 like' architecture, the reference mapping
> driver can ideally run alongside by filling the core Neutron constructs
> without ever 'disturbing' your own driver (I'm not entirely sure about this
> but it seems feasible).
>
> I hope this answers your question,
> Ivar.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/08/2014 08:55 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
>>
>>> The existing constructs will not change.
>>>
>>
>> A followup question on the above...
>>
>> If GPB API is merged into Neutron, the next logical steps (from what I
>> can tell) will be to add drivers that handle policy-based payloads/requests.
>>
>> Some of these drivers, AFAICT, will *not* be deconstructing these policy
>> requests into the low-level port, network, and subnet
>> creation/attachment/detachment commands, but instead will be calling out
>> as-is to hardware that speaks the higher-level abstraction API [1], not the
>> lower-level port/subnet/network APIs. The low-level APIs would essentially
>> be consumed entirely within the policy-based driver, which would
>> effectively mean that the only way a system would be able to orchestrate
>> networking in systems using these drivers would be via the high-level
>> policy API.
>>
>> Is that correct? Very sorry if I haven't explained clearly my question...
>> this is a tough question to frame eloquently :(
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -jay
>>
>> [1] http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/data-center-
>> virtualization/application-centric-infrastructure/index.html
>>
>>  On Aug 8, 2014 9:49 AM, "CARVER, PAUL" <pc2929 at att.com
>>> <mailto:pc2929 at att.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Wuhongning [mailto:wuhongning at huawei.com
>>>     <mailto:wuhongning at huawei.com>] wrote:
>>>
>>>      >Does it make sense to move all advanced extension out of ML2, like
>>>     security
>>>      >group, qos...? Then we can just talk about advanced service
>>>     itself, without
>>>      >bothering basic neutron object (network/subnet/port)
>>>
>>>     A modular layer 3 (ML3) analogous to ML2 sounds like a good idea. I
>>>     still
>>>     think it's too late in the game to be shooting down all the work
>>>     that the
>>>     GBP team has put in unless there's a really clean and effective way
>>> of
>>>     running AND iterating on GBP in conjunction with Neutron without
>>> being
>>>     part of the Juno release. As far as I can tell they've worked really
>>>     hard to follow the process and accommodate input. They shouldn't have
>>>     to wait multiple more releases on a hypothetical refactoring of how
>>>     L3+ vs
>>>     L2 is structured.
>>>
>>>     But, just so I'm not making a horrible mistake, can someone reassure
>>> me
>>>     that GBP isn't removing the constructs of network/subnet/port from
>>>     Neutron?
>>>
>>>     I'm under the impression that GBP is adding a higher level
>>> abstraction
>>>     but that it's not ripping basic constructs like network/subnet/port
>>> out
>>>     of the existing API. If I'm wrong about that I'll have to change my
>>>     opinion. We need those fundamental networking constructs to be
>>> present
>>>     and accessible to users that want/need to deal with them. I'm viewing
>>>     GBP as just a higher level abstraction over the top.
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>     OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>     <mailto: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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140808/e7cc9b5f/attachment.html>