Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
On Mon Dec 01 2014 at 2:06:18 PM henry hly henry4...@gmail.com wrote: My suggestion is that starting with LB and VPN as a trial, which can never be distributed. .. Sure they can! Loadbalancing in particular _should_ be distributed if both the clients and backends are in the same cluster... (I agree with your suggestion to start with LB+VPN btw, just not your reasoning ;) - Gus ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
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
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
On 19 November 2014 at 11:31, 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. Just wondering- have you considered a deeper decomposition? This has turned up e.g. during discussions in the Ironic context where having an API driven DHCP environment would be great, but all the virtual network management of Neutron is irrelevant. E.g - having a collection of minimal do-one-thing-well APIs with a common model. More SOA than we are today, but easier to reason about for individual deployments, and providing an arguably clearer place for vendors that have entirely different backends for various services to plug into. -Rob -- Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
Kyle Mestery wrote: We're in the process of writing a spec for this now, but we first wanted community feedback. Also, it's on the TC agenda for next week I believe, so once we get signoff from the TC, we'll propose the spec. Frankly, I don't think the TC really has to sign-off on what seems to be a reorganization of code within a single program. We might get involved if this is raised as a cross-project issue, but otherwise I don't think you need to wait for a formal TC sign-off. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
On 11/20/2014 05:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Kyle Mestery wrote: We're in the process of writing a spec for this now, but we first wanted community feedback. Also, it's on the TC agenda for next week I believe, so once we get signoff from the TC, we'll propose the spec. Frankly, I don't think the TC really has to sign-off on what seems to be a reorganization of code within a single program. We might get involved if this is raised as a cross-project issue, but otherwise I don't think you need to wait for a formal TC sign-off. As proposed, I agree. I appreciate the opportunity to sanity check, though. -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote: On 11/20/2014 05:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Kyle Mestery wrote: We're in the process of writing a spec for this now, but we first wanted community feedback. Also, it's on the TC agenda for next week I believe, so once we get signoff from the TC, we'll propose the spec. Frankly, I don't think the TC really has to sign-off on what seems to be a reorganization of code within a single program. We might get involved if this is raised as a cross-project issue, but otherwise I don't think you need to wait for a formal TC sign-off. As proposed, I agree. I appreciate the opportunity to sanity check, though. Cool, thanks for the sanity check here. We'll proceed with the spec and move forward with the proposal. Kyle -- Russell Bryant ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
On 11/19/14, 5:02 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com wrote: Hi, so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle. One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different priorities and velocities. Wouldn’t that be easier to track/manage as separate launchpad projects and specs repos, irrespective of who is approving them? My thinking here is that the specs repo is shared (at least initialy) because the projects are under one umbrella, and we want them to work closely together initially. This keeps everyone in the loop. Once things mature, we can look at reevaluating this. Does that make sense? Good by me. Thanks, Doug Thanks, Kyle Thanks, doug On Nov 18, 2014, at 10:31 PM, 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/progr ams.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 ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
I like the definition. PCM (Paul Michali) MAIL …..…. p...@cisco.com IRC ……..… pc_m (irc.freenode.com) TW ………... @pmichali GPG Key … 4525ECC253E31A83 Fingerprint .. 307A 96BB 1A4C D2C7 931D 8D2D 4525 ECC2 53E3 1A83 On Nov 18, 2014, at 10:10 PM, Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Mohammad Hanif mha...@brocade.com wrote: I agree with Paul as advanced services go beyond just L4-L7. Today, VPNaaS deals with L3 connectivity but belongs in advanced services. Where does Edge-VPN work belong? We need a broader definition for advanced services area. So the following definition is being proposed to capture the broader context and complement Neutron's current mission statement: To implement services and associated libraries that provide abstractions for advanced network functions beyond basic L2/L3 connectivity and forwarding. What do people think? Thanks, —Hanif. From: Paul Michali (pcm) p...@cisco.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 at 4:08 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote: Mark, Kyle, What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about this initiative? Blueprint spec, wiki page, or something else? One thing I personally found useful about the spec approach adopted in [1], was that we could quickly and effectively incorporate community feedback; having said that I am not sure that the same approach makes sense here, hence the question. Also, what happens for experimental efforts that are neither L2-3 nor L4-7 (e.g. TaaS or NFV related ones?), but they may still benefit from this decomposition (as it promotes better separation of responsibilities)? Where would they live? I am not sure we made any particular progress of the incubator project idea that was floated a while back. Would it make sense to define the advanced services repo as being for services that are beyond basic connectivity and routing? For example, VPN can be L2 and L3. Seems like restricting to L4-L7 may cause some confusion as to what’s in and what’s out. Regards, PCM (Paul Michali) MAIL …..…. p...@cisco.com IRC ……..… pc_m (irc.freenode.com) TW ………... @pmichali GPG Key … 4525ECC253E31A83 Fingerprint .. 307A 96BB 1A4C D2C7 931D 8D2D 4525 ECC2 53E3 1A83 Cheers, Armando [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680/ On 18 November 2014 15:32, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com wrote: Hi, so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle. One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different priorities and velocities. Wouldn’t that be easier to track/manage as separate launchpad projects and specs repos, irrespective of who is approving them? Thanks, doug On Nov 18, 2014, at 10:31 PM, 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote: Mark, Kyle, What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about this initiative? Blueprint spec, wiki page, or something else? We're in the process of writing a spec for this now, but we first wanted community feedback. Also, it's on the TC agenda for next week I believe, so once we get signoff from the TC, we'll propose the spec. Thanks, Kyle One thing I personally found useful about the spec approach adopted in [1], was that we could quickly and effectively incorporate community feedback; having said that I am not sure that the same approach makes sense here, hence the question. Also, what happens for experimental efforts that are neither L2-3 nor L4-7 (e.g. TaaS or NFV related ones?), but they may still benefit from this decomposition (as it promotes better separation of responsibilities)? Where would they live? I am not sure we made any particular progress of the incubator project idea that was floated a while back. Cheers, Armando [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680/ On 18 November 2014 15:32, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com wrote: Hi, so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle. One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different priorities and velocities. Wouldn’t that be easier to track/manage as separate launchpad projects and specs repos, irrespective of who is approving them? Thanks, doug On Nov 18, 2014, at 10:31 PM, 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 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com wrote: Hi, so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle. One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different priorities and velocities. Wouldn’t that be easier to track/manage as separate launchpad projects and specs repos, irrespective of who is approving them? My thinking here is that the specs repo is shared (at least initialy) because the projects are under one umbrella, and we want them to work closely together initially. This keeps everyone in the loop. Once things mature, we can look at reevaluating this. Does that make sense? Thanks, Kyle Thanks, doug On Nov 18, 2014, at 10:31 PM, 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 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
While I agree that a unified endpoint could be a good solution for now, I think that the easiest way of doing this would be by implementing it as an external Neutron service. Using python entry_points, the advanced service extensions can be loaded in Neutron just like we do today (using neutron.conf). We will basically have a new project for which Neutron will be a dependency (not the other way around!) so that any module of Neutron can be imported/used just like the new code was living within Neutron itself. As far as UTs are concerned, Neutron will also be in the test-requirements for the new project, which means that any existing UT framework in Neutron today can be easily reused by the new services. This is compliant with the requirement that Neutron stays the only endpoint, giving the ability to the user to load the new services when she wants by configuring Neutron alone, while separating the concerns more easily and clearly. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
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 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
On Nov 18, 2014, at 5:31 PM, 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 There would not be a service or REST API associated with the Advanced Services code base? Would the REST API to talk to those services be part of the Neutron repository? Doug___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
There would not be a service or REST API associated with the Advanced Services code base? Would the REST API to talk to those services be part of the Neutron repository? This is a good question. Also, I would love to have more details about the following point: - The Advance Service Library would be an optional dependency of Neutron If I understand correctly, the Advanced Services implementation will probably use Neutron's resources for L2/L3 connectivity (eg. create a port). So why are we planning on having this library as a Neutron's dependency and not the way around? Wouldn't this require extra changes in Neutron to happen before the split can happen? Also, shouldn't the AS APIs exist in the AS project? Imho, having this project act as an external Neutron extension makes more sense. Have you considered this option? It requires less cross-project changes and provides a very clear separation of concerns. Thanks for your heads up, Ivar. On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote: On Nov 18, 2014, at 5:31 PM, 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 There would not be a service or REST API associated with the Advanced Services code base? Would the REST API to talk to those services be part of the Neutron repository? Doug ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
Hi, so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle. One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different priorities and velocities. Wouldn’t that be easier to track/manage as separate launchpad projects and specs repos, irrespective of who is approving them? Thanks, doug On Nov 18, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Mark McClain m...@mcclain.xyzmailto: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.orgmailto: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
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
On Nov 18, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote: There would not be a service or REST API associated with the Advanced Services code base? Would the REST API to talk to those services be part of the Neutron repository? Doug We had considered having a standalone REST service, but the Advance Services need a level of integration with Neutron that is more than REST and RPC can provide. So the initial plan is to have the operator configure the Neutron REST service to load the appropriate Advance Service controller modules. This would enable the operators to continue to deploy a single endpoint and preserve existing user tools. The integration interface would be formalized as part of the current refactoring work being completed during the Kilo cycle. mark ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
Mark, Kyle, What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about this initiative? Blueprint spec, wiki page, or something else? One thing I personally found useful about the spec approach adopted in [1], was that we could quickly and effectively incorporate community feedback; having said that I am not sure that the same approach makes sense here, hence the question. Also, what happens for experimental efforts that are neither L2-3 nor L4-7 (e.g. TaaS or NFV related ones?), but they may still benefit from this decomposition (as it promotes better separation of responsibilities)? Where would they live? I am not sure we made any particular progress of the incubator project idea that was floated a while back. Cheers, Armando [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680/ On 18 November 2014 15:32, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com wrote: Hi, so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle. One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different priorities and velocities. Wouldn’t that be easier to track/manage as separate launchpad projects and specs repos, irrespective of who is approving them? Thanks, doug On Nov 18, 2014, at 10:31 PM, 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 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote: Mark, Kyle, What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about this initiative? Blueprint spec, wiki page, or something else? One thing I personally found useful about the spec approach adopted in [1], was that we could quickly and effectively incorporate community feedback; having said that I am not sure that the same approach makes sense here, hence the question. Also, what happens for experimental efforts that are neither L2-3 nor L4-7 (e.g. TaaS or NFV related ones?), but they may still benefit from this decomposition (as it promotes better separation of responsibilities)? Where would they live? I am not sure we made any particular progress of the incubator project idea that was floated a while back. Would it make sense to define the advanced services repo as being for services that are beyond basic connectivity and routing? For example, VPN can be L2 and L3. Seems like restricting to L4-L7 may cause some confusion as to what’s in and what’s out. Regards, PCM (Paul Michali) MAIL …..…. p...@cisco.com IRC ……..… pc_m (irc.freenode.com) TW ………... @pmichali GPG Key … 4525ECC253E31A83 Fingerprint .. 307A 96BB 1A4C D2C7 931D 8D2D 4525 ECC2 53E3 1A83 Cheers, Armando [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680/ On 18 November 2014 15:32, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com wrote: Hi, so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle. One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different priorities and velocities. Wouldn’t that be easier to track/manage as separate launchpad projects and specs repos, irrespective of who is approving them? Thanks, doug On Nov 18, 2014, at 10:31 PM, 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
On 18 November 2014 15:33, Mark McClain m...@mcclain.xyz wrote: On Nov 18, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote: There would not be a service or REST API associated with the Advanced Services code base? Would the REST API to talk to those services be part of the Neutron repository? Doug We had considered having a standalone REST service, but the Advance Services need a level of integration with Neutron that is more than REST and RPC can provide. Actually, I don't agree with this. I'm fairly sure that a combination of REST and notifications *could* provide advanced services with the information they require, so they could be a standalone, and optional, service with its own API endpoint. But the issue is that the interface Neutron has today is clearly not sufficient for the needs of the advanced services we have, and we would need to add APIs to facilitate that split when we wanted to take this further. -- Ian. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
I agree with Paul as advanced services go beyond just L4-L7. Today, VPNaaS deals with L3 connectivity but belongs in advanced services. Where does Edge-VPN work belong? We need a broader definition for advanced services area. Thanks, —Hanif. From: Paul Michali (pcm) p...@cisco.commailto:p...@cisco.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 at 4:08 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.commailto:arma...@gmail.com wrote: Mark, Kyle, What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about this initiative? Blueprint spec, wiki page, or something else? One thing I personally found useful about the spec approach adopted in [1], was that we could quickly and effectively incorporate community feedback; having said that I am not sure that the same approach makes sense here, hence the question. Also, what happens for experimental efforts that are neither L2-3 nor L4-7 (e.g. TaaS or NFV related ones?), but they may still benefit from this decomposition (as it promotes better separation of responsibilities)? Where would they live? I am not sure we made any particular progress of the incubator project idea that was floated a while back. Would it make sense to define the advanced services repo as being for services that are beyond basic connectivity and routing? For example, VPN can be L2 and L3. Seems like restricting to L4-L7 may cause some confusion as to what’s in and what’s out. Regards, PCM (Paul Michali) MAIL …..…. p...@cisco.commailto:p...@cisco.com IRC ……..… pc_m (irc.freenode.comhttp://irc.freenode.com) TW ………... @pmichali GPG Key … 4525ECC253E31A83 Fingerprint .. 307A 96BB 1A4C D2C7 931D 8D2D 4525 ECC2 53E3 1A83 Cheers, Armando [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680/ On 18 November 2014 15:32, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.commailto:do...@a10networks.com wrote: Hi, so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle. One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different priorities and velocities. Wouldn’t that be easier to track/manage as separate launchpad projects and specs repos, irrespective of who is approving them? Thanks, doug On Nov 18, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Mark McClain m...@mcclain.xyzmailto: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
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Mohammad Hanif mha...@brocade.com wrote: I agree with Paul as advanced services go beyond just L4-L7. Today, VPNaaS deals with L3 connectivity but belongs in advanced services. Where does Edge-VPN work belong? We need a broader definition for advanced services area. So the following definition is being proposed to capture the broader context and complement Neutron's current mission statement: To implement services and associated libraries that provide abstractions for advanced network functions beyond basic L2/L3 connectivity and forwarding. What do people think? Thanks, —Hanif. From: Paul Michali (pcm) p...@cisco.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 at 4:08 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote: Mark, Kyle, What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about this initiative? Blueprint spec, wiki page, or something else? One thing I personally found useful about the spec approach adopted in [1], was that we could quickly and effectively incorporate community feedback; having said that I am not sure that the same approach makes sense here, hence the question. Also, what happens for experimental efforts that are neither L2-3 nor L4-7 (e.g. TaaS or NFV related ones?), but they may still benefit from this decomposition (as it promotes better separation of responsibilities)? Where would they live? I am not sure we made any particular progress of the incubator project idea that was floated a while back. Would it make sense to define the advanced services repo as being for services that are beyond basic connectivity and routing? For example, VPN can be L2 and L3. Seems like restricting to L4-L7 may cause some confusion as to what’s in and what’s out. Regards, PCM (Paul Michali) MAIL …..…. p...@cisco.com IRC ……..… pc_m (irc.freenode.com) TW ………... @pmichali GPG Key … 4525ECC253E31A83 Fingerprint .. 307A 96BB 1A4C D2C7 931D 8D2D 4525 ECC2 53E3 1A83 Cheers, Armando [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680/ On 18 November 2014 15:32, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com wrote: Hi, so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle. One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different priorities and velocities. Wouldn’t that be easier to track/manage as separate launchpad projects and specs repos, irrespective of who is approving them? Thanks, doug On Nov 18, 2014, at 10:31 PM, 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
Is FWaas L2/3 or L4/7? On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Mohammad Hanif mha...@brocade.com wrote: I agree with Paul as advanced services go beyond just L4-L7. Today, VPNaaS deals with L3 connectivity but belongs in advanced services. Where does Edge-VPN work belong? We need a broader definition for advanced services area. So the following definition is being proposed to capture the broader context and complement Neutron's current mission statement: To implement services and associated libraries that provide abstractions for advanced network functions beyond basic L2/L3 connectivity and forwarding. What do people think? Thanks, —Hanif. From: Paul Michali (pcm) p...@cisco.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 at 4:08 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote: Mark, Kyle, What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about this initiative? Blueprint spec, wiki page, or something else? One thing I personally found useful about the spec approach adopted in [1], was that we could quickly and effectively incorporate community feedback; having said that I am not sure that the same approach makes sense here, hence the question. Also, what happens for experimental efforts that are neither L2-3 nor L4-7 (e.g. TaaS or NFV related ones?), but they may still benefit from this decomposition (as it promotes better separation of responsibilities)? Where would they live? I am not sure we made any particular progress of the incubator project idea that was floated a while back. Would it make sense to define the advanced services repo as being for services that are beyond basic connectivity and routing? For example, VPN can be L2 and L3. Seems like restricting to L4-L7 may cause some confusion as to what’s in and what’s out. Regards, PCM (Paul Michali) MAIL …..…. p...@cisco.com IRC ……..… pc_m (irc.freenode.com) TW ………... @pmichali GPG Key … 4525ECC253E31A83 Fingerprint .. 307A 96BB 1A4C D2C7 931D 8D2D 4525 ECC2 53E3 1A83 Cheers, Armando [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680/ On 18 November 2014 15:32, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com wrote: Hi, so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle. One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different priorities and velocities. Wouldn’t that be easier to track/manage as separate launchpad projects and specs repos, irrespective of who is approving them? Thanks, doug On Nov 18, 2014, at 10:31 PM, 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:04 PM, henry hly henry4...@gmail.com wrote: Is FWaas L2/3 or L4/7? Thats a good question, and what has been asked here in the context of VPNaaS as well. Hence the proposed definition below avoids characterizing the advanced services project purely as L4-7 because that would not be accurate (in the context of any of existing three services, or proposed new services). On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Mohammad Hanif mha...@brocade.com wrote: I agree with Paul as advanced services go beyond just L4-L7. Today, VPNaaS deals with L3 connectivity but belongs in advanced services. Where does Edge-VPN work belong? We need a broader definition for advanced services area. So the following definition is being proposed to capture the broader context and complement Neutron's current mission statement: To implement services and associated libraries that provide abstractions for advanced network functions beyond basic L2/L3 connectivity and forwarding. What do people think? Thanks, —Hanif. From: Paul Michali (pcm) p...@cisco.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 at 4:08 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote: Mark, Kyle, What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about this initiative? Blueprint spec, wiki page, or something else? One thing I personally found useful about the spec approach adopted in [1], was that we could quickly and effectively incorporate community feedback; having said that I am not sure that the same approach makes sense here, hence the question. Also, what happens for experimental efforts that are neither L2-3 nor L4-7 (e.g. TaaS or NFV related ones?), but they may still benefit from this decomposition (as it promotes better separation of responsibilities)? Where would they live? I am not sure we made any particular progress of the incubator project idea that was floated a while back. Would it make sense to define the advanced services repo as being for services that are beyond basic connectivity and routing? For example, VPN can be L2 and L3. Seems like restricting to L4-L7 may cause some confusion as to what’s in and what’s out. Regards, PCM (Paul Michali) MAIL …..…. p...@cisco.com IRC ……..… pc_m (irc.freenode.com) TW ………... @pmichali GPG Key … 4525ECC253E31A83 Fingerprint .. 307A 96BB 1A4C D2C7 931D 8D2D 4525 ECC2 53E3 1A83 Cheers, Armando [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680/ On 18 November 2014 15:32, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com wrote: Hi, so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle. One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different priorities and velocities. Wouldn’t that be easier to track/manage as separate launchpad projects and specs repos, irrespective of who is approving them? Thanks, doug On Nov 18, 2014, at 10:31 PM, 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
