Open Stack

Thanks guys.

I think you've answered my initial question. Probably not in the way I was
hoping it to be answered, but it's ok.

So now we have potentially 4 different blueprint describing more or less
overlapping use cases that we need to reconcile into one?
If the above is correct, then I suggest we go back to the use case and make
an effort to abstract a bit from thinking about how those use cases should
be implemented.

Salvatore

On 14 November 2014 15:42, Igor Cardoso <igordcard at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello all,
> Also, what about Kevin's https://review.openstack.org/#/c/87825/? One of
> its use cases is exactly the L2 gateway. These proposals could probably be
> inserted in a more generic work for moving existing datacenter L2 resources
> to Neutron.
> Cheers,
>
> On 14 November 2014 15:28, Mathieu Rohon <mathieu.rohon at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As far as I understood last friday afternoon dicussions during the
>> design summit, this use case is in the scope of another umbrella spec
>> which would define external connectivity for neutron networks. Details
>> of those connectivity would be defined through service plugin API.
>>
>> Ian do you plan to define such an umbrella spec? or at least, could
>> you sum up the agreement of the design summit discussion in the ML?
>>
>> I see at least 3 specs which would be under such an umbrella spec :
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/93329/ (BGPVPN)
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/101043/ (Inter DC connectivity with VPN)
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134179/ (l2 gw aas)
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Thanks Maruti,
>> >
>> > I have some comments and questions which I've posted on gerrit.
>> > There are two things I would like to discuss on the mailing list
>> concerning
>> > this effort.
>> >
>> > 1) Is this spec replacing  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100278 and
>> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/93613 - I hope so, otherwise this
>> just adds
>> > even more complexity.
>> >
>> > 2) It sounds like you should be able to implement this service plugin in
>> > either a feature branch or a repository distinct from neutron. Can you
>> > confirm that?
>> >
>> > Salvatore
>> >
>> > On 13 November 2014 13:26, Kamat, Maruti Haridas <maruti.kamat at hp.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Friends,
>> >>
>> >>      As discussed during the summit, I have uploaded the spec for
>> review
>> >> at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134179/
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Maruti
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Igor Duarte Cardoso.
> http://igordcard.com
> @igordcard <https://twitter.com/igordcard>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141114/e75e1e38/attachment.html>