Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: FW: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

2014-08-11 Thread loy wolfe
Hi Sumit, First I want to say I'm not opposed to GBP itself, but has many confusion about it's core resource model and how it will integrate with neutron core. Do you mean for whatever GBP backend configured in any future Neutron deployment, so long as they are in tree, then ML2 core plugin

Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: FW: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

2014-08-12 Thread loy wolfe
/L2P/L3P model while not just renaming them again and again. APPLY policy template to existing Neutron core resource, but not reinvent similar concept in GBP and then do the mapping. On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:12 PM, CARVER, PAUL pc2...@att.com wrote: loy wolfe [mailto:loywo...@gmail.com

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][ml2] Mech driver as out-of-tree add-on

2014-08-14 Thread loy wolfe
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Mathieu Rohon mathieu.ro...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I would like to add that it would be harder for the community to help maintaining drivers. such a work [1] wouldn't have occured with an out of tree ODL driver. +1. It's better to move all MD for none

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][ml2] Mech driver as out-of-tree add-on

2014-08-14 Thread loy wolfe
- preserve the ability of doing CI checks on gerrit as we do today - raise the CI bar (maybe finally set the smoketest as a minimum requirement?) Regards, Salvatore On 14 August 2014 11:47, loy wolfe loywo...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Mathieu

Re: [openstack-dev] Thought on service plugin architecture (was [Neutron][QoS] Request to be considered for neutron-incubator)

2014-08-20 Thread loy wolfe
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote: As the original thread had a completely different subject, I'm starting a new one here. More specifically the aim of this thread is about: 1) Define when a service is best implemented with a service plugin or with

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Incubator concerns from packaging perspective

2014-08-21 Thread loy wolfe
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote: Some comments inline. Salvatore On 20 August 2014 17:38, Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi all, I've read the proposal for incubator as described

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] [neutron] [tc] Neutron Incubator workflow

2014-08-26 Thread loy wolfe
Incubator doesn't mean being kicked out of tree, it just mean that the API and resource model needs to be baked for fast iteration, and can't be put in tree temporarily. As kyle has said, incubator is not talking about moving 3rd drivers out of tree, which is in another thread. For DVR, as it has

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Incubator concerns from packaging perspective

2014-08-26 Thread loy wolfe
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Luke Gorrie l...@tail-f.com wrote: On 21 August 2014 12:12, Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com wrote: Let the ones that are primarily interested in good quality of that code (vendors) to drive development. And if some plugins become garbage, it's bad news

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][ml2] Mech driver as out-of-tree add-on

2014-08-26 Thread loy wolfe
Forwarded from other thread discussing about incubator: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/044135.html Completely agree with this sentiment. Is there a crisp distinction between a vendor plugin and an open source plugin though? I think that opensource is not the

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][ml2] Mech driver as out-of-tree add-on

2014-08-26 Thread loy wolfe
/mechanism_odl.py On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 7:14 PM, loy wolfe loywo...@gmail.com wrote: Forwarded from other thread discussing about incubator: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/044135.html Completely agree with this sentiment. Is there a crisp distinction

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][ml2] Mech driver as out-of-tree add-on

2014-08-27 Thread loy wolfe
/plugins/ml2/drivers/mech_agent.py#L53 2. https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/7f466c8730cfca13f2fb374c80d810929bb8/neutron/plugins/ml2/drivers/mechanism_odl.py#L326 On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:05 PM, loy wolfe loywo...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Kevin Benton

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] [neutron] [tc] Neutron Incubator workflow

2014-08-27 Thread loy wolfe
be restricted to API changes, it should be used for any major new features that are possible to develop outside of the Neutron core. If we are going to have this new incubator tool, we should use it to the fullest extent possible. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:19 PM, loy wolfe loywo...@gmail.com wrote

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][NFV] VIF_VHOSTUSER

2014-09-01 Thread loy wolfe
If the neutron side MD is just for snabbswitch, then I thinks there is no change to be merged into the tree. Maybe we can learn from sriov nic, although backend is vendor specific, but the MD is generic, can support snabb, dpdkovs, ans other userspace vswitch, etc. As the reference implementation

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Status of Neutron at Juno-3

2014-09-08 Thread loy wolfe
Is TOR based vxlan really a common interest to most of the people, and should a BP be taken care now with its designed use case of 3rd TOR backend integration? On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Robert Kukura kuk...@noironetworks.com wrote: Kyle, Please consider an FFE for

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][group-based-policy] GP mapping driver

2014-06-20 Thread loy wolfe
GP should support applying policy on exist openstack deployment, so neither implicit mapping nor intercepting works well. maybe the explicit associating model is best: associate EPG with exist neutron network object (policy automatically applied to all ports on it), or with single port object

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] DVR SNAT shortcut

2014-06-25 Thread loy wolfe
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:29 PM, McCann, Jack jack.mcc...@hp.com wrote: If every compute node is assigned a public ip, is it technically able to improve SNAT packets w/o going through the network node ? It is technically possible to implement default SNAT at the compute node. One

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] [ML2] [L2GW] multiple l2gw project in ml2 team?

2014-07-02 Thread loy wolfe
I read the ml2 tracking reviews, find two similar spec for l2 gateway: 1) GW API: L2 bridging API - Piece 1: Basic use cases https://review.openstack.org/#/c/93613/ 2) API Extension for l2-gateway https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100278/ also neutron external port spec has some relationship

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][ML2] Support dpdk ovs with ml2 plugin

2014-07-09 Thread loy wolfe
i think both a new vnic_type and a new vif_type should be added. now vnic has three types: normal, direct, macvtap, then we need a new type of uservhost. as for vif_type, now we have VIF_TYPE_OVS, VIF_TYPE_QBH/QBG, VIF_HW_VEB, so we need a new VIF_TYPE_USEROVS I don't think it's a good idea to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][ML2] Support dpdk ovs with ml2 plugin

2014-07-10 Thread loy wolfe
the request. Regards, Irena *From:* loy wolfe [mailto:loywo...@gmail.com loywo...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, July 10, 2014 6:00 AM *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) *Cc:* Mooney, Sean K *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][ML2] Support dpdk ovs

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] Networks without subnets

2014-07-13 Thread loy wolfe
port with flexible ip address setting is necessary. I collected several use cases: 1) when creating a port, we need to indicate that, [A] binding to none of subnet(no ip address); [B] binding to all subnets; [C] binding to any subnet; [D] binding to explicitly list of subnets,

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] Networks without subnets

2014-07-14 Thread loy wolfe
to distinguish these two cases: for VNF VM we need to totally bypass qbr with ''no-port-filter setting and ovs-plug, while for some other certain VM we just need something like default-empty-filter, still with ovs-hybrid-plug. On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:19:05AM +0800, loy wolfe loywo...@gmail.com wrote

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][Spec Freeze Exception] ml2-ovs-portsecurity

2014-07-21 Thread loy wolfe
any relation with this BP? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97715/6/specs/juno/nfv-unaddressed-interfaces.rst On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Isaku Yamahata isaku.yamah...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to request Juno spec freeze exception for ML2 OVS portsecurity extension. -

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] Networks without subnets

2014-07-22 Thread loy wolfe
it is another BP about NFV: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97715 On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Isaku Yamahata isaku.yamah...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 02:52:04PM -0500, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote: Following up with post SAD status: *

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][SR-IOV]: RE: ML2 mechanism driver for SR-IOV capable NIC based switching, ...

2014-07-24 Thread loy wolfe
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Robert Li (baoli) ba...@cisco.com wrote: Hi Kyle, Sorry I missed your queries on the IRC channel today. I was thinking about this whole BP. After chatting with Irena this morning, I think that I understand what this BP is trying to achieve overall. I also had

[openstack-dev] Local message bus to connect all neutron agents in a host

2014-07-30 Thread loy wolfe
openstack is designed as decoupled between all modules, both nova and all neutron plugins: ml2, l3, advanced...however, their agents may need some sort of interaction. Here are two examples: 1) DVR. L2 population already push all portcontext for a subnet to CN, but L3 agent on it has to get once

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

2014-08-04 Thread loy wolfe
+1 mark On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Mark McClain mmccl...@yahoo-inc.com wrote: All- tl;dr * Group Based Policy API is the kind of experimentation we be should attempting. * Experiments should be able to fail fast. * The master branch does not fail fast. * StackForge is the proper

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] Multi-clouds integration by OpenStack cascading

2014-10-01 Thread loy wolfe
Hi Joe and Cellers, I've tried to understand relationship between Cell and Cascading. If Cell has been designed as below, would it be the same as Cascading? 1) Besides Nova, Neutron/Ceilometer.. is also hierarchically structured for scalability. 2) Child-parent interaction is based on REST

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Cells conversation starter

2014-10-22 Thread loy wolfe
I suspect whether cell itself could ease large scale deployment across multiple DC. Although openstack is modularized as separated projects, but top level total solution across projects is needed when considering issues such as scaling, especially coordination between nova and network / metering.

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][opendaylight]OpenDaylight Neutron Plugin design session etherpad

2014-11-03 Thread loy wolfe
A little confusion on this etherpad topic: Neutron is not a controller! Can OpenDaylight become The Controller? Is this the common consensus of the Whole Neutron community, and what does the word controller mean here? If Neutron controller nodes are not doing anything related with controlling,

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] what is the different between ovs-ofctl and iptalbes? Can we use ovs-ofctl to nat floating ip into fixed ip if we use openvswitch agent?

2014-11-03 Thread loy wolfe
maybe two reasons: performance caused by flow miss; feature parity L3+ flow table destroy the megaflow aggregation, so if your app has many concurrent sessions like web server, flow miss upcall would make vswitchd corrupted. iptable is already there, migrating it to ovs flow table needs a lot of

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition

2014-12-09 Thread loy wolfe
Remove everything out of tree, and leave only Neutron API framework as integration platform, would lower the attractions of the whole Openstack Project. Without a default good enough reference backend from community, customers have to depends on packagers to fully test all backends for them. Can

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] ML2 versus core plugin for OVN

2015-02-25 Thread loy wolfe
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, 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] ML2 versus core plugin for OVN

2015-02-25 Thread loy wolfe
(auditing, more access control, etc). On Feb 25, 2015 2:04 AM, loy wolfe loywo...@gmail.com wrote: +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

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] ML2 versus core plugin for OVN

2015-02-25 Thread loy wolfe
will push every work to backend through HTTP call, which partly block horizontal inter-operation with other backends. Then I'm thing about this pattern: ML2 /w thin MD - agent - HTTP call to backend? Which should be much easier for horizontal inter-operate. On Feb 25, 2015 6:15 PM, loy wolfe loywo

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] ML2 versus core plugin for OVN

2015-02-25 Thread loy wolfe
+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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [Nova] [Cinder] [tc] Should Openstack project maintained by core team keep only API/DB in the future?

2015-04-24 Thread loy wolfe
It's already away from the original thread, so I start this new one, also with some extra tag because I think it touch some corss-project area. Original discuss and reference: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-April/062384.html

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] A big tent home for Neutron backend code

2015-04-22 Thread loy wolfe
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote: Hello! A couple of things I've been working on lately are project governance issues as a TC member and also implementation of a new virtual

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [Nova] [Cinder] [tc] Should Openstack project maintained by core team keep only API/DB in the future?

2015-04-28 Thread loy wolfe
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote: The concern is that having broken drivers out there that claim to work with an OpenStack project end up making the project look bad. It's similar to a first time Linux user experiencing frequent kernel panics because they

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [Nova] [Cinder] [tc] Should Openstack project maintained by core team keep only API/DB in the future?

2015-04-27 Thread loy wolfe
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:06 AM, loy wolfe loywo...@gmail.com wrote: It's already away from the original thread, so I start this new one, also with some extra tag because I think it touch some corss-project area

[openstack-dev] [all] [cross-project] Any Openstack partitioning movements in this summit?

2015-04-29 Thread loy wolfe
Hi, Nova cell has emerged for several release cycles, with the mission of scalability. Now there are claims of Neutron cell. Maybe similar Cinder/Ceilometer partition demands would appear in the future. So I wander if cross-project Openstack partitioning would go into the our sight in the near

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] A big tent home for Neutron backend code

2015-04-29 Thread loy wolfe
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/29/2015 01:25 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: My take on the “where does it fit” yardstick: Does it stand on its own and add value? Then consider it a standalone project, *or* part of neutron if you and neutron agree that

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [Nova] [Cinder] [tc] Should Openstack project maintained by core team keep only API/DB in the future?

2015-04-29 Thread loy wolfe
From: loy wolfe Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 6:16:03 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [Nova] [Cinder] [tc] Should Openstack project maintained by core team keep only API/DB in the future? On Wed, Apr 29

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [Nova] [Cinder] [tc] Should Openstack project maintained by core team keep only API/DB in the future?

2015-04-28 Thread loy wolfe
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote: On 24 April 2015 at 15:13, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:06 AM, loy wolfe loywo...@gmail.com wrote: It's already away from the original thread, so I start this new one, also

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][vpnaas] Supporting multiple local subnets for VPN connections

2015-05-20 Thread loy wolfe
Extra subnets is suitable for attribute of IKE connections, but not the whole VPN service. Because customer usually want fine-grained control of which local subnet could communicate to remote subnets. On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Mathieu Rohon mathieu.ro...@gmail.com wrote: However after

[openstack-dev] [neutron] [ml2] Any other patch needed for hierarchical port binding?

2015-07-14 Thread loy wolfe
We want to try hierarchical port binding for some TOR vtep. However it seems that the patch [1] could not be applied directly onto JUNO release. So are there any other patch needed when merging this patch? Thanks a lot! [1]