On 30 March 2016 at 17:07, Abhishek Raut <[email protected]> wrote: > I think what Gary is talking about is BGP and the Border Gateway API > spec[1] in L2 GW repo. > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/270786/ >
Spec [1] has nothing to do with BGP (the routing protocol) last time I checked (note to self: I should go and have another look). We should probably consider clarify the confusion that stems from the use of the word 'Border' in spec [1]. A. > > —Abhishek Raut > > From: "Tidwell, Ryan" <[email protected]> > Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < > [email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 4:52 PM > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < > [email protected]> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] BGP support > > Gary, > > > > I’m not sure I understand the relationship you’re drawing between BGP and > L2 GW, could you elaborate? The BGP code that landed in Mitaka is mostly > geared toward the use case where you want to directly route your tenant > networks without any NAT (ie no floating IP’s, no SNAT). Neutron peers > with upstream routers and announces prefixes that tenants allocate > dynamically. We have talked about how we could build on what was merged in > Mitaka to support L3 VPN in the future, but to my knowledge no concrete > plan has emerged as of yet. > > > > -Ryan > > > > *From:* Gary Kotton [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Sunday, March 27, 2016 11:36 PM > *To:* OpenStack List > *Subject:* [openstack-dev] [Neutron] BGP support > > > > Hi, > > In the M cycle BGP support was added in tree. I have seen specs in the L2 > GW project for this support too. Are we planning to consolidate the > efforts? Will the BGP code be moved from the Neutron git to the L2-GW > project? Will a new project be created? > > Sorry, a little in the dark here and it would be nice if someone could > please provide some clarity here. It would be a pity that there were > competing efforts and my take would be that the Neutron code would be the > single source of truth (until we decide otherwise). > > I think that the L2-GW project would be a very good place for that service > code to reside. It can also have MPLS etc. support. So it may be a natural > fit. > > Thanks > > Gary > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
