We are very interested in spinning out BGP Dynamic Routing into a separate 
stadium project. We are ready and willing to help make this happen soon.

Mickey


-----Vikram Choudhary <viks...@gmail.com> wrote: -----
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
From: Vikram Choudhary <viks...@gmail.com>
Date: 03/21/2016 02:36AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] BGP Dynamic Routing Development Going    
Forward

Hi All,

I would like to reopen this mail tread for 'N' release. It's really great that 
we are able to ship 'BGP Dynamic Routing' functionality as part of Mitaka. 
Thanks to everyone who has contributed and helped in making this a reality ;)

For 'N' cycle, couple of RFE's [1] are already being lined up. In this regard 
we would like to hear from the community on what will be the best way moving 
forward:

1. Spun out 'BGP Dynamic Routing functionality' as a separate stadium project?
(FYI: We already initiated this during Mitaka via [2] & [3])

2. Keep developing in the neutron repo till we reach to a decision?
(As we have done in Mitaka so far)

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bugs?field.tag=l3-bgp
[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/268726/
[3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/268727/

Thanks
Vikram


On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 25 January 2016 at 08:23, Tidwell, Ryan <ryan.tidw...@hpe.com> wrote:
      
 
 Responses inline
  
 From: Gal Sagie [mailto:gal.sa...@gmail.com] 
 Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 9:49 PM
 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
 Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] BGP Dynamic Routing Development Going 
Forward
  
 
 The real question that needs to be asked (at least for me) is how this feature 
can work with other plugins/ML2 drivers
 
 that are not the reference implementation.
  
  
  -                      Regardless of the ML2 drivers you use, ML2 is 
supported with the reference implementation.  The code we have only works with 
ML2 though, which is a  concern for putting this in the main repo.
  
  
 How hard (possible) it is to take the API part (or maybe even the agent) and 
use that in another Neutron implementation.
  
 Then focus on which ever option that works best to achieve this.
  
 -          The agent is actually very portable in my opinion.  The server-side 
code is not so portable, as mentioned above only ML2 is supported.  Identifying 
 next-hops is done by querying the DB, it’s hard to make that portable between 
plugins.
  
  
  
 I personally think that if the long term goal is to have this in a separate 
repo then this should happen right now.
  
 "We will do this later" just won't work, it will be harder and it will just 
not happen (or it will cause a lot of pain to people
  
 that started deploying this)
  
 At least thats my opinion, of course it depends a lot on the people who 
actually work on this...
  
  -                      I completely agree which is why I’m not too excited 
about deferring a split.  It doesn’t really set us back in our development 
efforts to move out to  a separate repo.  We’re quickly closing in on being 
functionally complete and this code peels out of the main repo rather cleanly, 
so I feel we really lose nothing by just moving to out of the main repo 
immediately if that’s the direction we go for the long  haul.  As you point out 
it saves users some pain in during a future upgrade.

In my humble opinion, you should get yourselves be guided by the ones who have 
the most hands-on experience with the Neutron codebase. By all means, we do 
make mistakes, but we're the ones who have been dealing with the hurdles caused 
by those mistakes. If we advised you for a strategy, then this strategy is most 
likely the direct consequence of a past/ongoing experience; if you continue 
ignoring this simple fact in your judgement, then this discussion is pointless.

  
  
  
 Gal.
  
 
  
 
 On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Vikram Choudhary <viks...@gmail.com> wrote:
  I agree with Armando and feel option 2 would be viable if we really want to 
deliver this feature in Mitaka time frame. Adding a new stadium project invites 
more work and can be done in N release.
 Thanks 
 Vikram 
 
 
 
 On Jan 22, 2016 11:47 PM, "Armando M." <arma...@gmail.com> wrote:
  
  
 
  
 
 On 22 January 2016 at 08:57, Tidwell, Ryan <ryan.tidw...@hpe.com> wrote:
  
 
 I wanted to raise the question of whether to develop BGP dynamic routing in 
the Neutron repo or spin it out to as a stadium project.  This question has 
been raised recently on reviews  and in offline discussions.  For those 
unfamiliar with this work, BGP efforts in Neutron entail admin-only API’s for 
configuring and propagating BGP announcements of next-hops for floating IP’s, 
tenant networks, and host routes for each compute port when using  DVR.  As we 
are getting late in the Mitaka cycle, I would like to be sure there is 
consensus on the approach for Mitaka.  As I see it, we have 3 courses of action:
 
 1. Continue with development in the main repo without any intention of 
spinning out to a stadium project
 2. Continue on the current development course for Mitaka while targeting a 
spin-out to a stadium project during the N cycle
 3. Spin out to a stadium project immediately
  
 Each has pros and cons.  This question seems to have arisen while looking at 
the sheer amount code being proposed, its place in the Neutron model, and 
questioning whether we really  want to bring that code into Neutron.� As such, 
continuing with option 1 definitely requires us to come to some consensus.� Let 
me be clear that I,m not opposed to any of these options, I,m simply looking 
for some guidance.� With that said, if the end game  is a stadium project I do 
question whether #2 makes sense.
    
 �
  
 Not sure if you followed the latest discussion on [1,2] ([1] capturing the 
latest events). Delivering something production worthy goes a lot more beyond 
simply posting code upstream. We, as a community, have promised to deliver BGP 
capabilities  for many cycles, and failed so far. Choosing 3 is clearly going 
to defer this to N or even O because of the amount of effort required to set it 
all up (release, docs, testing, etc). Option 2, as painful as it may sound, 
gives us the ability to get immediate  access to all that's required to deliver 
something to users so that they can play with it at the end of Mitaka if they 
choose to. In the meantime that will give us some breathing room to get ready 
as soon as N opens up.
  
 �
  
 I am operating under the assumption that what you guys have been working on is 
close to being functionally complete. If we don't even have that, then we're in 
trouble no matter which option we choose and we can defer this yet again :/
  
 �
  
 Having said that, we can all agree that option #1 is not what we all want. 
Just to be clear, I am in favor of #2.
  
 �
  
 Cheers,
  
 Armando
  
 �
  
 [1]  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/268727/
  
 [2]  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/268726/
  
 �
   
 
 �
 -Ryan
 �
 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201621/
 https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/bgp-dynamic-routing
 �
   
 __________________________________________________________________________
 OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
 Unsubscribe:  openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
   �
   
 __________________________________________________________________________
 OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
 Unsubscribe:  openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
     
 __________________________________________________________________________
 OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
 Unsubscribe:  openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
   
 
 
 
 �
  -- 
 
 Best Regards ,
 
 The G. 
      
__________________________________________________________________________
 OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
 Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
 

 
__________________________________________________________________________
 OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
 Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
 

 
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to