FWaas is typically classified to L4-L7. But if they are developed
standalone, it would be very difficult for implementing with a
distributed manner. For example, with W-E traffic control in DVR mode,
we can't rely on a external python client rest api call, the policy
execution module must be loaded as the L3 agent extension, or another
service-policy agent in the compute node.

My suggestion is that starting with LB and VPN as a trial, which can
never be distributed. FW is very tightly coupled with L3, so leaving
it for discuss some time later may be more smooth.

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Mark McClain <m...@mcclain.xyz> wrote:
> All-
>
> Over the last several months, the members of the Networking Program have
> been discussing ways to improve the management of our program.  When the
> Quantum project was initially launched, we envisioned a combined service
> that included all things network related.  This vision served us well in the
> early days as the team mostly focused on building out layers 2 and 3;
> however, we’ve run into growth challenges as the project started building
> out layers 4 through 7.  Initially, we thought that development would float
> across all layers of the networking stack, but the reality is that the
> development concentrates around either layer 2 and 3 or layers 4 through 7.
> In the last few cycles, we’ve also discovered that these concentrations have
> different velocities and a single core team forces one to match the other to
> the detriment of the one forced to slow down.
>
> Going forward we want to divide the Neutron repository into two separate
> repositories lead by a common Networking PTL.  The current mission of the
> program will remain unchanged [1].  The split would be as follows:
>
> Neutron (Layer 2 and 3)
> - Provides REST service and technology agnostic abstractions for layer 2 and
> layer 3 services.
>
> Neutron Advanced Services Library (Layers 4 through 7)
> - A python library which is co-released with Neutron
> - The advance service library provides controllers that can be configured to
> manage the abstractions for layer 4 through 7 services.
>
> Mechanics of the split:
> - Both repositories are members of the same program, so the specs repository
> would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle.  The PTL and the drivers
> team will retain approval responsibilities they now share.
> - The split would occur around Kilo-1 (subject to coordination of the Infra
> and Networking teams). The timing is designed to enable the proposed REST
> changes to land around the time of the December development sprint.
> - The core team for each repository will be determined and proposed by Kyle
> Mestery for approval by the current core team.
> - The Neutron Server and the Neutron Adv Services Library would be co-gated
> to ensure that incompatibilities are not introduced.
> - The Advance Service Library would be an optional dependency of Neutron, so
> integrated cross-project checks would not be required to enable it during
> testing.
> - The split should not adversely impact operators and the Networking program
> should maintain standard OpenStack compatibility and deprecation cycles.
>
> This proposal to divide into two repositories achieved a strong consensus at
> the recent Paris Design Summit and it does not conflict with the current
> governance model or any proposals circulating as part of the ‘Big Tent’
> discussion.
>
> Kyle and mark
>
> [1]
> https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/plain/reference/programs.yaml
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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