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.


OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to