Hi Cory,

Here NFV-Apps will use the infrastructure' L3 Route table' to make any decision 
?
>From OpenStack perspective NFV-App(VM)  is not like any other Tennant-VM as 
>for as delivering the packet is concerned ?
Is there any  thinking of NFV-App ( Service router VM) to insert any routing 
information in OpenStack infrastructure ?


Thanks & Regards,
keshava 

-----Original Message-----
From: Cory Benfield [mailto:cory.benfi...@metaswitch.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 2:09 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][nova] New specs on routed networking

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
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