On 04/24/2012 10:12 AM, Sumit Naiksatam (snaiksat) wrote: > Hi All, > > Thanks for your feedback on the L3 (forwarding) proposal during the > summit and also prior to that. The action item coming out of the summit > session was to further discuss this with the Melange/IPAM team to > identify points of overlap and/or what are the additional requirements. > Accordingly, after focused discussions with many folks including Troy, > Jason, and Trey from the Melange team, it seems that we are pretty much > on the same page in terms of what the L3 (forwarding) proposal wants to > achieve and how IPAM will support the data-store aspects of this. > > There are constructs like the ip_block in (former) Melange which map to > the Subnet (in the L3 forwarding proposal). There are others like the > route-table and targets which might not have a direct mapping, and which > might need to be realized separately. These in turn might drive further > requirements on the IPAM component, but this will be clearer once we > start implementing the L3 forwarding proposal. Also, realizing the > target abstraction will need plugin-level support which might differ > based on the type of the target being realized and the underlying > network infrastructure. So the plan is to go forward with the > implementation of both IPAM and L3 route-table/target API, with both > going into the trunk branch. The work on L3 will hopefully drive any > further needs on the IPAM component. > > Specifically on the ip_block/subnet construct, the current thought is to > call it a Subnet. Also, this is better modeled as a separate construct, > rather than an attribute in the virtual network resource, since we > should be able to model 1:n and n:1 relationships between L3 and L2 > networks. > > Please let us know if you have any further thoughts on this. If you > missed this session during the summit, the slides are posted here: > http://www.slideshare.net/sumit_naik/summit-prepquantuml3modelsumit9 > > Thanks, > ~Sumit. >
This all sounds reasonable to me, as far as it goes. I was at the quantum summit sessions and re-read the slides and proposal, but I'm still not at all clear on how the melange and L3-forwarding functionality will relate to quantum plugins: 1) Is the merge of melange into quantum going to be pluggable, or is the IPAM implementation going to be built directly into quantum-server (or a separate server)? 2) If the IPAM functionality is going to be pluggable, will this be part of the same plugin handling L2, or will it be a separate plugin that can be configured independently of the the L2 plugin? 3) I expect that the L3-forwarding functionality will be pluggable. Will this be handled by the same plugin as L2 and/or IPAM, or as a separate L3 plugin? Thanks, -Bob -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack Post to : netstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
