On 08/05/2014 04:26 PM, Stephen Wong wrote:
Agreed with Kevin and Sumit here. As a subgroup we talked about Nova integration, and the preliminary idea, as Bob alluded to, is to add "endpoint" as an option in place of Neutron port. But if we can make Nova EPG-aware, it would be great.
Is anyone listening to what I'm saying? The term "endpoint" is obtuse and completely disregards the existing denotation of the word "endpoint" in use in OpenStack today.
So, we've gone ahead and replaced the term "port" in the caller interface -- which, besides being too entirely too low-level, actually did describe what the object was -- to using a term "endpoint" that doesn't describe even remotely what the thing is (a template for a collection of networking-related policies and objects) and that already has a well-known definition in the OpenStack ecosystem.
That is my point. That is why I brought up the comment on the original patch in the series that some docstrings would be helpful for those not entirely subscribed to the Tenets of National Dvorkinism.
These interfaces should speak plain old concepts, not networking guru arcanum.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Sumit Naiksatam <sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com <mailto:sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com>> wrote: That's right Kevin, EPG (and its association to the L2/3_Policy) capture the attributes which would represent the "network-template" being referenced here. Jay, what Bob mentioned here was an option to use the "endpoint" as a one-to-one replacement for the option of using a Neutron port. This is more so in the context of providing an evolutionary path (from the way Nova currently does it using a pre-defined port). However, if it makes sense to make Nova aware of the EPG right at the outset, then that is even better. I have also noted your suggestion on clarifying the "endpoint" terminology. This was already done in one of the patches you had reviewed earlier, and will do that in the first patch as well (where you pointed it out now). Thanks, ~Sumit. On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Kevin Benton <blak...@gmail.com <mailto:blak...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Specifying an endpoint group would achieve the --networking-template effects > you described. The endpoint group would have all of the security policies, > IP allocation policies, connectivity policies, etc. already setup. > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com <mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On 08/05/2014 01:13 PM, Robert Kukura wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 8/5/14, 11:04 AM, Gary Kotton wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> Is there any description of how this will be consumed by Nova. My >>>> concern is this code landing there. >>> >>> Hi Gary, >>> >>> Initially, an endpoint's port_id is passed to Nova using "nova boot ... >>> --nic port-id=<port-uuid> ...", requiring no changes to Nova. Later, >>> slight enhancements to Nova would allow using commands such as "nova >>> boot ... --nic ep-id=<endpoint-uuid> ..." or "nova boot ... --nic >>> epg-id=<endpoint-group-uuid> ...". >> >> >> Hi Bob, >> >> How exactly is the above a friendlier API for the main user of Neutron, >> which is Nova? I thought one of the main ideas behind the GBP stuff was to >> create a more declarative and intuitive API for users of Neutron -- i.e. >> Nova -- to use in constructing needed networking objects. The above just >> seems to me to be exchanging one low-level object (port) with another >> low-level object (endpoint or endpoint group)? >> >> Perhaps the disconnect is due to the term "endpoint" being used, which, >> everywhere else in the OpenStack universe, means something entirely >> different from GBP. >> >> I guess, based on my understanding of the *intent* of the GBP API, I would >> have expected an API more like: >> >> nova boot ... --networking-template <UUID> >> >> where --networking-template would refer to a network, subnet topology, IP >> assignment policy, collection of security groups and firewall policies that >> the tenant had established prior to booting an instance... thereby making >> the API more intuitive and less cluttered. >> >> Or is it that I just don't understand this new "endpoint" terminology? >> >> Best, >> -jay >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStackemail@example.com <mailto:OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > -- > Kevin Benton > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStackemail@example.com <mailto:OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com <mailto:OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev