Open Stack

>Vendors can even implement their own private extension without any change
to ML2 by defining their customized vif-detail fields.

I'm not sure this is a good thing. What happens when 3 different vendors
all implement the same attribute with the same name with different
behavior? Since the API is no longer standard even with the reference core
plugin, it fragments the clients. Each vendor will need to write it's own
neutron client changes, GUIs, etc.

If the ML2 vif-details structure is going to become a dumping ground for
anything, why even store things there in the first place? Since everything
will require custom clients, the port ID can just be used as a foreign key
to another API instead and the ML2 objects don't need to change at all.


On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Wuhongning <wuhongning at huawei.com> wrote:

>  +1 to service plugin
>
>  It's better to strip service related extensions from ML2 core plugin as
> possible as we can, and put them in separate service plugin. Not only QOS,
> but also SG or possible other extensions. For the "binding" issue,
> vif-detail dict might be used for foreign key association.
>
>  Whenever service is added, new key type could be defined in vif-detail
> dict to associate with service object uuid from this new plugin. Vendors
> can even implement their own private extension without any change to ML2 by
> defining their customized vif-detail fields. Not only port, but
> network/subnet should also add such meta dict fields in their attribute,
> flexible foreign key support has been in absence for a long time on these
> ML2 core resource.
>
>  In the previous GBP discussion, I've also suggested similar idea. If we
> have clean boundary between ML2 core plugin and service plugin, the argumentative
> EP/EPG or renamed PT/PG resource object could be eliminated even if GBP
> is in the Neutron, because we can apply service contract group objects
> directly onto existing port/network/subnet resource by foreign key
> association binding, without reinvent these overlapped concept.
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Salvatore Orlando [sorlando at nicira.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 20, 2014 6:12 AM
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][QoS] Request to be considered
> for neutron-incubator
>
>   In the current approach QoS support is being "hardwired" into ML2.
>
>  Maybe this is not the best way of doing that, as perhaps it will end up
> requiring every mech driver which enforces VIF configuration should support
> it.
> I see two routes. One is a mechanism driver similar to l2-pop, and then
> you might have a look at the proposed extension framework (and partecipate
> into the discussion).
> The other is doing a service plugin. Still, we'll have to solve how to
> implement the "binding" between a port/network and the QoS entity. If we go
> for the approach we've chosen so far the resource extension model you still
> have to deal with ML2 extensions. But I like orthogonality in services, and
> QoS is a service to me.
> Another arguable point is that we might want to reconsider our
> abuse^H^H^H^H^H use of resource attribute extension, but this is a story
> for a different thread.
>
>  Regarding the incubator request, I think we need to wait for the process
> to be "blessed". But you have my support and I would happy to help to
> assist with this work item through its process towards graduation.
>
>  This obviously provided the QoS team wants me to do that!
>
>  Salvatore
>
>
> On 19 August 2014 23:15, Alan Kavanagh <alan.kavanagh at ericsson.com> wrote:
>
>> +1, I am hoping this is just a short term holding point and this will
>> eventually be merged into main branch as this is a feature a lot of
>> companies, us included would definitely benefit from having supported and
>> many thanks to Sean for sticking with this and continue to push this.
>> /Alan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Collins, Sean [mailto:Sean_Collins2 at cable.comcast.com]
>> Sent: August-19-14 8:33 PM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][QoS] Request to be considered for
>> neutron-incubator
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The QoS API extension has lived in Gerrit/been in review for about a
>> year. It's gone through revisions, summit design sessions, and for a little
>> while, a subteam.
>>
>> I would like to request incubation in the upcoming incubator, so that the
>> code will have a more permanent "home" where we can collaborate and improve.
>> --
>> Sean M. Collins
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Kevin Benton
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140819/6d3ca342/attachment.html>