That's just what I mean about horizontal, which is limited for some
features. For example, ports belonging to BSN driver and OVS driver can't
communicate with each other in the same tunnel network, neither does
security group across both sides.
There is no tunnel network in this case, just VLAN
The fact that a system doesn't use a neutron agent is not a good
justification for monolithic vs driver. The VLAN drivers co-exist with OVS
just fine when using VLAN encapsulation even though some are agent-less.
There is a missing way to coordinate connectivity with tunnel networks
across
Yeah, it seems ML2 at the least should save you a lot of boilerplate.
On Feb 25, 2015 2:32 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/24/2015 05:38 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
OVN implementing it's own control plane isn't a good reason to make it a
monolithic plugin. Many of the ML2
You can horizontally split as well (if I understand what axis definitions
you are using). The Big Switch driver for example will bind ports that
belong to hypervisors running IVS while leaving the OVS driver to bind
ports attached to hypervisors running OVS.
I don't fully understand your comments
In the cases I'm referring to, OVS handles the security groups and
vswitch. The other drivers handle fabric configuration for VLAN tagging to
the host and whatever other plumbing they want to do.
On Feb 25, 2015 5:30 PM, loy wolfe loywo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:51 AM,
Oh, what you mean is vertical splitting, while I'm talking about horizontal
splitting.
I'm a little confused about why Neutron is designed so differently with
Nova and Cinder. In fact MD could be very simple, delegating nearly all
things out to agent. Remember Cinder volume manager? The real
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that a system doesn't use a neutron agent is not a good
justification for monolithic vs driver. The VLAN drivers co-exist with OVS
just fine when using VLAN encapsulation even though some are agent-less.
so how
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
You can horizontally split as well (if I understand what axis definitions
you are using). The Big Switch driver for example will bind ports that
belong to hypervisors running IVS while leaving the OVS driver to bind
ports
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Sukhdev Kapur sukhdevka...@gmail.com
wrote:
Folks,
A great discussion. I am not expert at OVN, hence, want to ask a question.
The answer may make a case that it should probably be a ML2 driver as
oppose to monolithic plugin.
Say a customer want to deploy
+1 to separate monolithic OVN plugin
The ML2 has been designed for co-existing of multiple heterogeneous
backends, it works well for all agent solutions: OVS, Linux Bridge, and
even ofagent.
However, when things come with all kinds of agentless solutions, especially
all kinds of SDN controller
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com
wrote:
On 24 February 2015 at 01:34, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
Russel and I have already merged the initial ML2 skeleton driver [1].
The thinking is that we can always revert to a non-ML2 driver if needed.
OVN implementing it's own control plane isn't a good reason to make it a
monolithic plugin. Many of the ML2 drivers are for technologies with their
own control plane.
Going with the monolithic plugin only makes sense if you are certain that
you never want interoperability with other technologies
I think we're speculating a lot about what would be best for OVN whereas we
should probably just expose pro and cons of ML2 drivers vs standalone
plugin (as I said earlier on indeed it does not necessarily imply
monolithic *)
I reckon the job of the Neutron community is to provide a full picture
25, 2015 6:04 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] ML2 versus core plugin for OVN
Folks,
A great discussion. I am not expert at OVN, hence, want to ask a question. The
answer may make a case that it should probably be a ML2
Folks,
A great discussion. I am not expert at OVN, hence, want to ask a question.
The answer may make a case that it should probably be a ML2 driver as
oppose to monolithic plugin.
Say a customer want to deploy an OVN based solution and use HW devices from
one vendor for L2 and L3 (e.g. Arista
[branching off a discussion on ovs-dev at this point:
http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2015-February/051609.html]
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
One thing to keep in mind, this ties somewhat into my response to Russell
earlier on the decision around
16 matches
Mail list logo
