Open Stack

Gal, if you have some time to coordinate this with the service chaining/firewall folks and start a spec, it’d be amazing.


Best regards,
Miguel Angel Ajo



On Friday 5 June 2015 at 12:42, Vikram Choudhary wrote:

> Hi Gal,
>  
> It's really nice that you are also interested. Myself and Miguel was also talking about this over the summit ;)
> Let's take care of this together ;)
>  
> Thanks
> Vikram
>  
>  
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Gal Sagie <gal.sagie at gmail.com (mailto:gal.sagie at gmail.com)> wrote:
> > Another use case is for security/firewall classifiers.
> >  
> > I agree with this and i think me and Miguel talked about it in the summit, but in order for this to go
> > forward someone need to start creating a spec and managing this effort.
> >  
> > Since you proposed it first Vikram, will you do it?
> > If not i will gladly take this on myself.
> >  
> > Gal.
> >  
> >  
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Vikram Choudhary <vikram.choudhary at huawei.com (mailto:vikram.choudhary at huawei.com)> wrote:
> > > Thanks Miguel!  
> > >   
> > > From: Miguel Angel Ajo [mailto:mangelajo at redhat.com]  
> > > Sent: 05 June 2015 14:12
> > > To: Vikram Choudhary
> > > Cc: azama-yuji at mxe.nes.nec.co.jp (mailto:azama-yuji at mxe.nes.nec.co.jp); Henry Fourie; Cathy Zhang; armamig at gmail.com (mailto:armamig at gmail.com); Dongfeng (C); Kyle Mestery; openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org (mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org); Dhruv Dhody; Kalyankumar Asangi
> > > Subject: [neutron] Regarding Flow classifiers existing proposals  
> > >   
> > >   
> > >  
> > >   
> > >  
> > > Added openstack-dev, where I believe this conversation must live.
> > >  
> > >   
> > >  
> > > I totally agree on this, thank you for bringing up this conversation. This is not something we want to do for QoS this cycle, but probably next cycle.
> > >  
> > >   
> > >  
> > > Anyway, an unified data model and API to create/update classifiers will not only be beneficial from the code duplication point of view, but will also provide a better user experience.
> > >  
> > >   
> > >  
> > > I’m all for it.
> > >  
> > >   
> > >  
> > > Best regards,
> > >  
> > > Miguel Ángel Ajo
> > >  
> > >  
> > >   
> > >  
> > > On Friday 5 June 2015 at 09:57, Vikram Choudhary wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > Dear All,
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > There are multiple proposal floating around flow classifier rules for Liberty [1], [2] and [3].
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > I feel we all should work together and try to address all our use case having a unified framework rather than working separately achieving the same  goal.
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > Moreover, I can find the proposal for flow classifier as defined by the existing SFC [2] proposal is too generic and could address all the use cases by minor extension’s.
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > In this regard, I would like all to come forward, exchange their thoughts, work together and make it happen good the first go rather doing the same effort separately and end up in duplicating code & effort L.
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > I always feel less code will make our life happy in the long run ;)
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > Please let me know about your views.
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > [1] Add Neutron API extensions for packet forwarding
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >       https://review.openstack.org/#/c/186663/
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > > [2] Neutron API for Service Chaining [Flow Filter resource]
> > > >  
> > > >       https://review.openstack.org/#/c/177946/6/specs/liberty/neutron-api-for-service-chaining.rst
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > [3] QoS API Extension [Defines classifier rule in QoSRule. Classifier rule can really grow big in the long run]:
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >       https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88599/10/specs/liberty/qos-api-extension.rst
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > Thanks
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > Vikram
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > >  
> > >   
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > __________________________________________________________________________
> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe (http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe)
> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > --  
> > Best Regards ,
> >  
> > The G.  
> > __________________________________________________________________________
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe (http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe)
> > 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/20150605/ebea7de2/attachment.html>