[neutron][scientific-sig] SIG help with Linuxbridge ML2 maintenance?

Tim Bell Tim.Bell at cern.ch
Thu Nov 21 19:48:37 UTC 2019


Thanks for raising the point.

This has raised the question of functional equivalence where one driver has less functional than others.

From our experience at CERN, this is not an issue as long as the user community is not demanding the full functional equivalence.

Some drivers are chosen by deployments because they solve the requirements for that cloud rather than because they cover everything. In fact, a focussed minimum subset functionality may be very attractive if that’s all a deployment needs, has a lower skills and operations bar and is sustainable.

Sustainability should not be assessed by activity. No reason to fix/improve something that works as long as it keeps up with the target functionality.


On 21 Nov 2019, at 19:31, Stig Telfer <stig.openstack at telfer.org<mailto:stig.openstack at telfer.org>> wrote:

Hi all -

Following this discussion [1] around the Linuxbridge ML2 driver, I’m aware that a number of members of the Scientific SIG use this driver and appreciate its performance and simplicity.

Would anyone from the Neutron project involved in this issue be interested in joining a Scientific SIG meeting to discuss how SIG members can help with keeping this driver maintained?  Our next meeting is Tuesday 26th November at 2100 UTC.  If that’s possible, please let me know and we’ll put it on the agenda.

Many thanks,

[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-November/010761.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20191121/eb1100ef/attachment.html>

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list