Ok. If don't have more or less working solution by the beginning of next week, let's start a second track to consume ML2 part only as a mitigation plan.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Dmitry Borodaenko <[email protected] > wrote: > Correction/clarification: call tomorrow is about > multiple-cluster-networks, and it was a bad idea on my part to try to > hijack that with neutron-ml2 discussion. Lets not do that and continue > discussing the blueprint spec in gerrit, and hopefully by Thursday > Andrew will have enough code out there to make the discussion more > concrete. Link: > https://review.openstack.org/99807 > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Dmitry Borodaenko > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mike, > > > > We discussed this in our team syncup meeting earlier today. The > > agreement was that HA is the biggest risk with the current approach. > > However, keeping our current state of divergence from upstream (and > > even exagerrating it further) leaves us with a huge technical debt, so > > the tradeoff between that and potential new neutron deployment issues > > is not that obvious. Andrew is confident that he can port our HA > > deployment code over to the current upstream puppet-neutron by the end > > of this week, he's now updating the spec per review comments from the > > team and we will have another meeting tomorrow morning (8am PT) to go > > over all concerns and risks. > > > > -DmitryB > > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Mike Scherbakov > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Fuelers, Andrew, > >> I've talked to Sergey V. today about ML2 support in Fuel. Our current > >> approach [1] is to port upstream puppet module for Neutron which has > support > >> of ML2, however our Neutron module is significantly diverged from > upstream > >> one (at least for Neutron HA deployment capabilities), as far as I > >> understand. Basically, there is a risk that we will get unstable Neutron > >> deployment in 5.1. Also, unless we have ML2, we are blocking others who > rely > >> on it, for example Mellanox. > >> > >> To mitigate the risk, there is a suggestion to start the work in two > >> parallel tracks: one is to continue porting of upstream puppet module, > and > >> another one - port the only ML2 part into Fuel Neutron puppet module. > This > >> will not take much time, but will allow us to have 5.1 reliable and > with ML2 > >> in case of instability after porting external module. > >> > >> Your opinion on this? > >> > >> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/99807/1/specs/5.1/ml2-neutron.rst > >> -- > >> Mike Scherbakov > >> #mihgen > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Dmitry Borodaenko > > > > -- > Dmitry Borodaenko > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Mike Scherbakov #mihgen
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
