I pointed out the similarity of the two specifications while reviewing them
a few months ago (see patch set #4).
Ian then approached me on IRC (I'm afraid it's going to be a bit difficult
to retrieve those logs), and pointed out that actually the two
specifications, in his opinion, try to address different problems.

While the proposed approaches appear different, their ultimate goal is
apparently that of enabling instances to see multiple networks on the same
data-plane level port (as opposed to the mgmt-level logical port). While it
might be ok to have a variety of choice at the data plane level - my
suggestion is that we should have only a single way of specifying this at
the mgmt level, with the least possible changes to the simple logical model
we have - and here I'm referring to the proposed trunkport/subport approach



On 22 October 2014 14:42, Kyle Mestery <> wrote:

> There are currently at least two BPs registered for VLAN trunk support
> to VMs in neutron-specs [1] [2]. This is clearly something that I'd
> like to see us land in Kilo, as it enables a bunch of things for the
> NFV use cases. I'm going to propose that we talk about this at an
> upcoming Neutron meeting [3]. Given the rotating schedule of this
> meeting, and the fact the Summit is fast approaching, I'm going to
> propose we allocate a bit of time in next Monday's meeting to discuss
> this. It's likely we can continue this discussion F2F in Paris as
> well, but getting a head start would be good.
> Thanks,
> Kyle
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to