Hi Folks,
I have postponed this meeting to the week of February 10th on Thursday Feb
13th, so that there is enough time for people to plan to attend this meeting.
Meeting details will be discussed in the neutron meeting and will send out the
details.
Thanks
Swami
From: Vasudevan, Swaminathan
Hi Folks,
I would like to invite you all for a Face-to-Face Meeting next week at Palto
Alto-CA to go over our DVR proposal for Neutron.
The current plan is to have the meeting next week on Thursday, January 30th.
We will be also having a virtual room and conference bridge for remote people
to
Regarding using 'provider' in L3 router, for the BP 'L3 service integration
with service framework', I've submitted some code for review, which is
using 'provider' in a same notion as other advanced services. I am not sure
if it can be reused to describe 'centralized' and 'distributed' behavior.
@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: måndag 23 december 2013 19:17
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Neutron Distributed Virtual Router
I generally tend to agree that once the distributed router is available,
nobody would probably want to use a centralized one.
Nevertheless, I think it is correct that, at least for the moment, some
advanced services would only work with a centralized router.
There might also be unforeseen
Are these NSX routers *functionally* different?
What we're talking about here is a router which, whether it's distributed
or not, behaves *exactly the same*. So as I say, maybe it's an SLA thing,
but 'distributed' isn't really user meaningful if the user can't actually
prove he's received a
NSX makes firewall distributed also. So besides VPN, before neutron
implements FW also in a distributed fashion, it might be another reason
that people need existing router. Discussion about advanced services and
dvr is recorded here:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Distributed-Virtual-Router
I'm +1 for 'provider'.
2013/12/9 Akihiro Motoki mot...@da.jp.nec.com:
Neutron defines provider attribute and it is/will be used in advanced
services (LB, FW, VPN).
Doesn't it fit for a distributed router case? If we can cover all services
with one concept, it would be nice.
According to
Hi Nachi,
Yes you are right, NSX deals with (local or distributed) routers and Service
Routers.
Thanks
Swami
Hi Yong
NSX have two kind of router.
Edge and distributed router.
Edge node will work as some VPN services and advanced service nodes.
Actually, VPNaaS OSS impl is running in
Hi Nachi/Akihiro motoki,
I am not clear.
Today the L3 Service Plugin does not support the service_type attribute to
define the provider option.
Are we suggesting that we need to include the service_type for the L3 Service
Plugin and then we can make use of the service_type attribute to
Hi Folks,
We are in the process of defining the API for the Neutron Distributed Virtual
Router, and we have a question.
Just wanted to get the feedback from the community before we implement and post
for review.
We are planning to use the distributed flag for the routers that are supposed
to
I guess the question that immediately comes to mind is, is there anyone
that doesn't want a distributed router? I guess there could be someone out
there that hates the idea of traffic flowing in a balanced fashion, but
can't they just run a single router then? Does there really need to be some
I would imagine that, from the Neutron perspective, you get a single router
whether or not it's distributed. I think that if a router is distributed -
regardless of whether it's tenant-tenant or tenant-outside - it certainly
*could* have some sort of SLA flag, but I don't think a simple
If distributed router is good enough, why do we still need non-distributed
router?
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Ian Wells ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk wrote:
I would imagine that, from the Neutron perspective, you get a single
router whether or not it's distributed. I think that if a router is
Hi Yong
NSX have two kind of router.
Edge and distributed router.
Edge node will work as some VPN services and advanced service nodes.
Actually, VPNaaS OSS impl is running in l3-agent.
so IMO, we need l3-agent also for basis of some edge services.
2013/12/9 Yongsheng Gong
Neutron defines provider attribute and it is/will be used in advanced
services (LB, FW, VPN).
Doesn't it fit for a distributed router case? If we can cover all services with
one concept, it would be nice.
According to this thread, we assumes at least two types edge and
distributed.
Though edge
Roseville)
[mailto:swaminathan.vasude...@hp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 2:50 PM
To: cloudbengo; Artem Dmytrenko; yong sheng gong (gong...@unitedstack.com);
OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Distributed Virtual Router Discussion
Hi Folks
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Distributed Virtual Router Discussion
Hi Folks,
Thanks for your interests in the DVR feature.
We should get together to start discussing the details in the DVR.
Please let me know who else is interested, probably the time slot and we can
start nailing down
);
OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Distributed Virtual Router Discussion
Hi Folks,
Thanks for your interests in the DVR feature.
We should get together to start discussing the details in the DVR.
Please let me know who else is interested, probably the time
Hi Artem,
Very happy to see more stackers working on this feature. : )
Note that the images in your document are badly corrupted - maybe my questions
could already be answered by your diagrams.
I met the same issue at first. Downloading the doc and open it locally may
help. It works for me.
)
Subject: Re: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Distributed Virtual Router Discussion
Hi Artem,
Very happy to see more stackers working on this feature. : )
Note that the images in your document are badly corrupted - maybe my questions
could already be answered by your diagrams.
I met the same issue
Swami
From: Robin Wang [mailto:cloudbe...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:45 AM
To: Artem Dmytrenko; yong sheng gong (gong...@unitedstack.com); OpenStack
Development Mailing List; Vasudevan, Swaminathan (PNB Roseville)
Subject: Re: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Distributed
Development Mailing List; Vasudevan, Swaminathan (PNB Roseville)
Subject: Re: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Distributed Virtual Router
Discussion
Hi Artem,
Very happy to see more stackers working on this feature. : )
Note that the images in your document are badly corrupted - maybe my
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:45 AM
To: Artem Dmytrenko; yong sheng gong (gong...@unitedstack.com); OpenStack
Development Mailing List; Vasudevan, Swaminathan (PNB Roseville)
Subject: Re: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Distributed Virtual Router
Discussion
Hi Artem
24 matches
Mail list logo
