Open Stack

Thanks Paul. Feedback like this, from actual users of neutron in large
deployments, is the very reason why I feel so strongly that we need to keep
this a high priority work item.

Regards,
Mandeep


On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 9:28 AM, CARVER, PAUL <pc2929 at att.com> wrote:

>  Mohammad Banikazemi wrote:
>
>  >in Atlanta the support was overwhelmingly positive in my opinion. I
> just wanted to make sure this does not get >lost in our discussions.
>
>  Absolutely. I hadn’t been following the group policy discussions prior
> to the summit but I was very impressed with what I saw and heard.
>
>
> >to in particular discuss the possibility of making the code less tightly
> coupled with Neutron core.
>
> +1 to making it less tightly coupled (although I haven’t been inside the
> code to have an opinion on how tightly coupled it is now)
>
> Let’s keep in mind OSI-like layers and well defined interfaces between
> them. Coming from a hardware networking background I find it very
> convenient to think in terms of ports, networks, subnets and routers. Those
> concepts should continue to be basic building blocks of software defined
> networks. The layer 4+ stuff should be added on top with clean interfaces
> that don’t entangle functionality up and down the stack.
>
> Strict OSI layer compliance has never been a great success, but the
> general concept has been very useful for a long time All the most painful
> protocols for a network person to deal with are the ones like SIP where
> clean separation of layers was indiscriminately  violated.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140523/2cccefd2/attachment.html>