Paul Carver wrote:
On 11/12/2015 3:50 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
All I am saying is that IF we merge some classifier API into neutron
core and start using it for core, non-experimental, features, we cannot
later move to some newer version of this API [that you will
German wrote:
Ihar,
The Service Group API will be added to FWaaS only and remain experimental
in M. If the community finds it useful for other areas it can be added to
Neutron core once it is matures. I think incubating it inside FWaaS will
give us the
Ihar,
The Service Group API will be added to FWaaS only and remain experimental in M.
If the community finds it useful for other areas it can be added to Neutron
core once it is matures. I think incubating it inside FWaaS will give us the
velocity to iterate quickly and once it matures a
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:53:49AM EST, Paul Carver wrote:
> On 11/3/2015 1:03 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote:
> >Anyway, the code is currently up on GitHub - I just threw it on there
> >because I wanted to scratch my hacking itch quickly.
> >
> >https://github.com/sc68cal/neutron-classifier
> >
>
>
Cathy Zhang wrote:
Agree with Paul and Louis. The networking-sfc repo should be preserved to
support the service function chain functionality. Flow classifier is just
needed to specify what flows will go through the service port chain.
The flow classifier API is
On 11/12/2015 3:50 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
All I am saying is that IF we merge some classifier API into neutron
core and start using it for core, non-experimental, features, we cannot
later move to some newer version of this API [that you will iterate on]
without leaving a huge pile of
On 11/3/2015 1:03 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote:
Anyway, the code is currently up on GitHub - I just threw it on there
because I wanted to scratch my hacking itch quickly.
https://github.com/sc68cal/neutron-classifier
Sean,
How much is needed to turn your models into something runnable to the
, 2015 2:33 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][qos][fwaas] service groups vs. traffic
classifiers
Paul,
Agree completely that the networking-sfc repo should be preserved as it
includes functionality beyond that of just
On 11/10/2015 8:30 AM, Sean M. Collins wrote:
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:58:34AM EST, Jay Pipes wrote:
2) Keep the security-group API as-is to keep outward compatibility with AWS.
Create a single, new service-groups and service-group-rules API for L2 to L7
traffic classification using mostly
.
- Louis
-Original Message-
From: Paul Carver [mailto:pcar...@paulcarver.us]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 1:07 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][qos][fwaas] service groups vs. traffic
classifiers
On 11/10/2015
Sean and Mickey +1
As much as I like us using the same API to create classifiers (users only need
to learn one way) I think for the short term we should work with our own
constructs and rely on a common data model. That will allow us to iterate
faster on the REST API level and not have
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:58:34AM EST, Jay Pipes wrote:
> In short, my preference, in order, would be:
>
> 1) Enhance/evolve the existing security-groups and security-group-rules API
> in Neutron to support more generic classification of traffic from L2 to L7,
> using mostly the modeling that
On 11/03/2015 12:19 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
Now, I don't think that we need two APIs for the same thing. I would
be glad if we instead converge on a single API, making sure all cases
are covered. In the end, the feature is just a building block for
other features, like fwaas, security groups,
il.com>
Date: 11/09/2015 05:04AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][qos][fwaas] service groups vs. traffic
classifiers
On 11/03/2015 12:19 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> Now, I don't think that we need two APIs for the same thing. I would
> be glad if we instead converge on a singl
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:08:26PM EST, Vikram Choudhary wrote:
> Thanks for all your efforts Sean.
>
> I was actually thinking a separate IRC for this effort would be great and
> will help all the interested people to come together and develop.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
Unless it becomes super
Sean M. Collins wrote:
Hi Ihar,
This sounds good. I actually had a draft e-mail that I've been saving
until I got back, that may be relevant. Some contributors met on Friday
to discuss the packet classification framework, mostly centered around
just building a reusable
I am fine with this!
-Original Message-
From: Sean M. Collins [mailto:s...@coreitpro.com]
Sent: 04 November 2015 14:28
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][qos][fwaas] service groups vs. traffic
classifiers
On Tue, Nov
Hi Ihar,
This sounds good. I actually had a draft e-mail that I've been saving
until I got back, that may be relevant. Some contributors met on Friday
to discuss the packet classification framework, mostly centered around
just building a reusable library that can be shared among multiple
Thanks for all your efforts Sean.
I was actually thinking a separate IRC for this effort would be great and
will help all the interested people to come together and develop.
Any thoughts on this?
Thanks
Vikram
On Nov 3, 2015 11:54 PM, "Sean M. Collins" wrote:
> I made a
I made a very quick attempt to jot down my thoughts about how it could
be used. It's based off what I proposed in https://review.openstack.org/238812,
and is my attempt to take that review and use SQLAlchemy to make it
actually work.
20 matches
Mail list logo