On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 21:50:09, Carl Baldwin wrote: > Many API users won't care about the L2 details. This could be a > compelling alternative for them. However, some do. The L2 details > seem to matter an awful lot to many NFV use cases. It might be that > this alternative is just not compelling for those. Not to say it > isn't compelling overall though.
Agreed. This is a point worth emphasising: routed networking is not a panacea for everyone's networking woes. We've got a lot of NFV people and products at my employer, and while we're engaged in work to come up with L3 approaches to solve their use-cases, we'd like to draw a balance between adding complexity to the network layer to support legacy L2-based requirements and providing better native L3 solutions that NFV applications can use instead. One of the key challenges with NFV is that it shouldn't just be a blind porting of existing codebases - you need to make sure you're producing something which takes advantage of the new environment. Cory _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev