This thread is moving so fast I can't keep up!

The fact that troubles me is that I am unable to grasp how we move forward,
which was the point of this thread to start with. It seems we have 2

- We make GBP to merge as is, in the Neutron tree, with some minor revision
(e.g. naming?);
- We make GBP a stackforge project, that integrates with Neutron in some
shape or form;

Another option, might be something in between, where GBP is in tree, but in
some sort of experimental staging area (even though I am not sure how well
baked this idea is).

Now, as a community we all need make a decision; arguing about the fact
that the blueprint was approved is pointless. As a matter of fact, I think
that blueprint should be approved, if and only if the code has landed
completely, but I digress!

Let's together come up with pros and cons of each approach and come up with
an informed decision.

Just reading free form text, how are we expected to do that? At least I

My 2c.

On 6 August 2014 15:03, Aaron Rosen <> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Kevin Benton <> wrote:
>> >I believe the referential security group rules solve this problem
>> (unless I'm not understanding):
>> I think the disconnect is that you are comparing the way to current
>> mapping driver implements things for the reference implementation with the
>> existing APIs. Under this light, it's not going to look like there is a
>> point to this code being in Neutron since, as you said, the abstraction
>> could happen at a client. However, this changes once new mapping drivers
>> can be added that implement things differently.
>> Let's take the security groups example. Using the security groups API
>> directly is imperative ("put a firewall rule on this port that blocks this
>> IP") compared to a higher level declarative abstraction ("make sure these
>> two endpoints cannot communicate"). With the former, the ports must support
>> security groups and there is nowhere except for the firewall rules on that
>> port to implement it without violating the user's expectation. With the
>> latter, a mapping driver could determine that communication between these
>> two hosts can be prevented by using an ACL on a router or a switch, which
>> doesn't violate the user's intent and buys a performance improvement and
>> works with ports that don't support security groups.
>> Group based policy is trying to move the requests into the declarative
>> abstraction so optimizations like the one above can be made.
> Hi Kevin,
> Interesting points. Though, let me ask this. Why do we need to move to a
> declarative API abstraction in neutron in order to perform this
> optimization on the backend? For example, In the current neutron model say
> we want to create a port with a security group attached to it called web
> that allows TCP:80 in and members who are in a security group called
> database. From this mapping I fail to see how it's really any different
> from the declarative model? The ports in neutron are logical abstractions
> and the backend system could be implemented in order to determine that the
> communication between these two hosts could be prevented by using an ACL on
> a router or switch as well.
> Best,
> Aaron
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to