The existing constructs will not change.
On Aug 8, 2014 9:49 AM, "CARVER, PAUL" <pc2...@att.com> wrote:

> Wuhongning [mailto:wuhongn...@huawei.com] wrote:
>
> >Does it make sense to move all advanced extension out of ML2, like
> security
> >group, qos...? Then we can just talk about advanced service itself,
> without
> >bothering basic neutron object (network/subnet/port)
>
> A modular layer 3 (ML3) analogous to ML2 sounds like a good idea. I still
> think it's too late in the game to be shooting down all the work that the
> GBP team has put in unless there's a really clean and effective way of
> running AND iterating on GBP in conjunction with Neutron without being
> part of the Juno release. As far as I can tell they've worked really
> hard to follow the process and accommodate input. They shouldn't have
> to wait multiple more releases on a hypothetical refactoring of how L3+ vs
> L2 is structured.
>
> But, just so I'm not making a horrible mistake, can someone reassure me
> that GBP isn't removing the constructs of network/subnet/port from Neutron?
>
> I'm under the impression that GBP is adding a higher level abstraction
> but that it's not ripping basic constructs like network/subnet/port out
> of the existing API. If I'm wrong about that I'll have to change my
> opinion. We need those fundamental networking constructs to be present
> and accessible to users that want/need to deal with them. I'm viewing
> GBP as just a higher level abstraction over the top.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to