Open Stack

I didn't finish reading it, and was thinking about the same thing exactly.

IMHO option 4th is the best. So we will be able to provide an interface 
where stability
is controlled, where we can deprecate things in a controlled manner, and 
we know what we
support and what we don't.

Do you have a rough idea of what operations you may need to do?

Please bear in mind, the extension interface will be available from 
different agent types
(OVS, SR-IOV, [eventually LB]), so this interface you're talking about 
could also serve as
a translation driver for the agents (where the translation is possible), 
I totally understand
that most extensions are specific agent bound, and we must be able to 
identify
the agent we're serving back exactly.


Best regards,
Miguel Ángel Ajo

Kevin Benton wrote:
> I think the 4th of the options you proposed would be the best. We don't
> want to give agents direct access to the agent object or else we will run
> the risk of breaking extensions all of the time during any kind of
> reorganization or refactoring. Having a well defined API in between will
> give us flexibility to move things around.
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:32 AM,<thomas.morin at orange.com>  wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> (TL;DR: we would like an L2 agent extension to be able to call methods on
>> the agent class, e.g. OVSAgent)
>>
>> In the networking-bgpvpn project, we need the reference driver to interact
>> with the ML2 openvswitch agent with new RPCs to allow exchanging
>> information with the BGP VPN implementation running on the compute nodes.
>> We also need the OVS agent to setup specific things on the OVS bridges for
>> MPLS traffic.
>>
>> To extend the agent behavior, we currently create a new agent by mimicking
>> the main() in ovs_neutron_agent.py but instead of instantiating instantiate
>> OVSAgent, with instantiate a class that overloads the OVSAgent class with
>> the additional behavior we need [1] .
>>
>> This is really not the ideal way of extending the agent, and we would
>> prefer using the L2 agent extension framework [2].
>>
>> Using the L2 agent extension framework would work, but only partially: it
>> would easily allos us to register our RPC consumers, but not to let us
>> access to some datastructures/methods of the agent that we need to use:
>> setup_entry_for_arp_reply and local_vlan_map, access to the OVSBridge
>> objects to manipulate OVS ports.
>>
>> I've filled-in an RFE bug to track this issue [5].
>>
>> We would like something like one of the following:
>> 1) augment the L2 agent extension interface (AgentCoreResourceExtension)
>> to give access to the agent object (and thus let the extension call methods
>> of the agent) by giving the agent as a parameter of the initialize method
>> [4]
>> 2) augment the L2 agent extension interface (AgentCoreResourceExtension)
>> to give access to the agent object (and thus let the extension call methods
>> of the agent) by giving the agent as a parameter of a new setAgent method
>> 3) augment the L2 agent extension interface (AgentCoreResourceExtension)
>> to give access only to specific/chosen methods on the agent object, for
>> instance by giving a dict as a parameter of the initialize method [4],
>> whose keys would be method names, and values would be pointer to these
>> methods on the agent object
>> 4) define a new interface with methods to access things inside the agent,
>> this interface would be implemented by an object instantiated by the agent,
>> and that the agent would pass to the extension manager, thus allowing the
>> extension manager to passe the object to an extension through the
>> initialize method of AgentCoreResourceExtension [4]
>>
>> Any feedback on these ideas...?
>> Of course any other idea is welcome...
>>
>> For the sake of triggering reaction, the question could be rephrased as:
>> if we submit a change doing (1) above, would it have a reasonable chance of
>> merging ?
>>
>> -Thomas
>>
>> [1]
>> https://github.com/openstack/networking-bgpvpn/blob/master/networking_bgpvpn/neutron/services/service_drivers/bagpipe/ovs_agent/ovs_bagpipe_neutron_agent.py
>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/195439/
>> [3]
>> https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/master/neutron/plugins/ml2/drivers/openvswitch/agent/extension_drivers/qos_driver.py#L30
>> [4]
>> https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/master/neutron/agent/l2/agent_extension.py#L28
>> [5] https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1499637
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev