[ptg][neutron] Ussuri PTG summary
skaplons at redhat.com
Wed Nov 13 11:20:04 UTC 2019
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 04:31:20AM +0000, James Denton wrote:
> Appreciate the summary as well.
> For what it's worth, the ML2/LinuxBridge combo has been a very stable setup for us since its inception, and I'd hate to see it deprecated and removed for the sake of removing something. Last I checked, trunk ports were supported with the ML2/LinuxBridge driver. And while of course DVR is not a supported feature, a good number of our ML2/LXB environments forgo Neutron routers altogether in favor of putting VMs on the provider network. It has shown to be as performant as vanilla OVS, and a simpler model to implement and support as an operator.
You're right. Trunk ports are ofcourse supported by LB agent. But e.g. some of
QoS rules aren't supported by this backend.
> Just my two cents.
> James Denton
> Network Engineer
> Rackspace Private Cloud
> james.denton at rackspace.com
> On 11/12/19, 3:41 PM, "Tim Bell" <Tim.Bell at cern.ch> wrote:
> CAUTION: This message originated externally, please use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments!
> Many thanks for the summaries. It’s really helpful for those who could not be in the discussions.
> CERN are also using ML2/Linuxbridge so we’d welcome being involved in any deprecation discussions and migration paths.
> > On 12 Nov 2019, at 14:53, Slawek Kaplonski <skaplons at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi Neutron team,
> > First if all thank to all of You for great and very productive week during the
> > PTG in Shanghai.
> > Below is summary of our discussions from whole 3 days.
> > If I forgot about something, please respond to the email and update missing
> > informations. But if You want to have follow up discussion about one of the
> > topics from this summary, please start a new thread to keep this one only as
> > high level summary of the PTG.
> > ...
> > Starting the process of removing ML2/Linuxbridge
> > ================================================
> > Currently in Neutron tree we have 4 drivers:
> > * Linuxbridge,
> > * Openvswitch,
> > * macvtap,
> > * sriov.
> > SR-IOV driver is out of discussion here as this driver is
> > addressing slightly different use case than other out drivers.
> > We started discussion about above topic because we don't want to end up with too
> > many drivers in-tree and we also had some discussions (and we have spec for that
> > already) about include networking-ovn as in-tree driver.
> > So with networking-ovn in-tree we would have already 4 drivers which can be used
> > on any hardware: linuxbridge, ovs, macvtap and ovn.
> > Conclusions from the discussion are:
> > * each driver requires proper testing in the gate, so we need to add many new
> > jobs to our check/gate queue,
> > * currently linuxbridge driver don't have a lot of development and feature
> > parity gaps between linuxbridge and ovs drivers is getting bigger and bigger
> > (e.g. dvr, trunk ports),
> > * also macvtap driver don't have a lot of activity in last few cycles. Maybe
> > this one could be also considered as candidate to deprecation,
> > * we need to have process of deprecating some drivers and time horizon for such
> > actions should be at least 2 cycles.
> > * we will not remove any driver completly but rather we will move it to be in
> > stadium process first so it still can be maintained by people who are
> > interested in it.
> > Actions to do after this discussion:
> > * Miguel Lavalle will contact RAX and Godaddy (we know that those are
> > Linuxbridge users currently) to ask about their feedback about this,
> > * if there are any other companies using LB driver, Nate Johnston is willing to
> > help conctating them, please reach to him in such case.
> > * we may ratify marking linuxbridge as deprecated in the team meeting during
> > Ussuri cycle if nothing surprising pops in.
Senior software engineer
More information about the openstack-discuss