Open Stack

Ryan,
   So this is intended to associate a contract with a source EPG and a destination EPG – right?

-          Louis


From: Mandeep Dhami [mailto:dhami at noironetworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:21 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Cc: Subrahmanyam Ongole
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][policy] Bridging the 2-group gap in group policy

Hi Ryan:

As I stated in the patch review, the suggestion to use a "profiled API" like IETF/CCITT is indeed very interesting. As a "profiled API" has not been tried with any neutron model before, and as there is no existing design pattern/best practices for how best to structure that, my recommendation is to create a new patch (dependent on this patch) to try that experiment.

That patch will also clarify what is meant you mean by a "profiled API" and how that might interact with other openstack services like Heat and Horizon.

Regards,
Mandeep
-----


On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Hemanth Ravi <hemanthraviml at gmail.com<mailto:hemanthraviml at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,

Adding this CLI command seems to be a good way to provide support for the second model. This can be submitted as a new review patch to work through the approaches to implement this. I suggest the current CLI patch [1] be reviewed for the existing spec and completed.

Ryan, would it possible for you to start a new review submit for the new command(s). Could you also provide any references for "profiled" API in IETF, CCITT.

Thanks,
-hemanth

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/104013

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Ryan Moats <rmoats at us.ibm.com<mailto:rmoats at us.ibm.com>> wrote:

As promised in Monday's Neutron IRC minutes [1], this mail is a "trip down memory lane" looking at the history of the
Neutron GP project..  The original GP google doc [2] included specifying policy via both a produce/consume 1-group
approach and as a link between two groups.  There was an email thread [3] that discussed the relationship between
these models early on, but that discussion petered out and during a later IRC meeting [4] the concept of contracts
were added, but without changing the basic use case requirements from the original document.  A followup meeting [5]
began the discussion of how to express the original model from the contract data model but that discussion doesn't
appear to have been completed either.  The PoC in Atlanta raised a set of issues [6],[7] around the complexity of the
resulting PoC code.

The good news is that having looked through the proposed GP code commits (links to which can be found at [8) I
believe that folks that want to be able to specify policies via the 2-group approach (and yes, I'm one of them) can have
that without changing the model encoded in those commits. Rather, it can be done via the WiP CLI code commit by
providing a "profiled" API - this is a technique used by the IETF, CCITT, etc. to allow a rich API to be consumed in
common ways.  In this case, what I'm envisioning is something like

neutron policy-apply [policy rule] [src group] [destination group]

in this case, the CLI would perform the contract creation for the policy rule, and assigning the proper produce/consume
edits to the specified source and destination groups.  Note:  this is in addition to the CLI providing direct access to the
underlying data model.  I believe that this is the simplest way to "bridge the gap" and provide support to folks who want
to specify policy as something between two groups.

Ryan Moats (regXboi)

References:
[1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking/2014/networking.2014-07-28-21.02.log.txt
[2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZbOFxAoibZbJmDWx1oOrOsDcov6Cuom5aaBIrupCD9E/edit#<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZbOFxAoibZbJmDWx1oOrOsDcov6Cuom5aaBIrupCD9E/edit>
[3] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-December/022150.html
[4] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_policy/2014/networking_policy.2014-02-27-19.00.log.html
[5] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_policy/2014/networking_policy.2014-03-20-19.00.log.html
[6] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-May/035661.html
[7] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_policy/2014/networking_policy.2014-05-22-18.01.log.html
[8] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron_Group_Policy

_______________________________________________
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<mailto: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/20140731/c2ed9c3d/attachment.html>