Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Do we want to map ETSI NFV terms to OpenStack ones? Or maybe identify the needs themselves. Talk to the OpenStack community in the community terms and hopefully also explain why they are relevant for other cases too. Itai Sent from my iPhone > On May 27, 2014, at 4:30 PM, "Nicolas Thomas" > wrote: > > > > In the case a single service VM: you have 1 VNF composed of 1 VNFC. > > Specs tries to cover most cases, hence makes the simple ones looks too > complex. > > The next question will be the type of services you want to put in this > VM. If it ends up providing services to manage your VNF(C) then you will > end up in the VNF infrastructure realm .. with guess what: other names :) > >> On 26/05/2014 06n7, Isaku Yamahata wrote: >> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:13:57PM +0900, >> "Ogaki, Kenichi" wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >> >> Hi. >> >>> I’m newbie to Openstack, so I want to clarify how OpenStack can implement >>> ETSI NFV Architecture. >>> >>> The concept of Advanced service ln ks like Network Service in ETSI NFV >>> Architecture as shown in Figure 3 b > elow: >>> http://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Published/gs_NFV002v010101p.pdf >>> >>> As the functional role, VNF (Virtualized Network Function) may be >>> corespondent to Logical Service Instance. >>> However, in ETSI NFV Architecture, VNF is composed of VNFC (VNF Component) >>> or VDU (Virtual Deployment Unit) and each VNFC orVDU instance is deployed >>> as a VM. >>> These VNFC or VDU instances are connected by logical or physical network >>> links in a manner of a kind of service chaining, then a VNF instance is >>> created. >>> In the same manner, Network Service is created from one or multiple VNF(s). >> >> Hmm, we don't use same terminology. Is there any public documentation for >> those terminology? The public docuemnts I can find is too high-level to >> understand the requirement. >> >> The first target of servicevm project is to address the case of single >> service in single VM(VNFC in NFV terminology?) at first. >> Then evolve the implementation for more complex case with experiment. >> >> >>> My question is: >>> Is it possible that the current OpenStack components realize an advanced >>> service in the above manner? >>> Meaning, an advanced service is composed of hierarchical multiple VMs. >> >> I suspect no one knows. This is why we unite to make efforts for NFV. >> >> >> thanks, >> Isaku Yamahata >> >> >>> All the best, >>> Kenichi >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: Dmitry [mailto:mey...@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 5:40 PM >>>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit >>>> >>>> Hi Isaku, >>>> Thank you for the updated link. I'n not sure where from I get the previous >>>> one, probably from the direct Google search. >>>> If we're talking about NFV Mano, it's very important to keep NFVO and VNFM >>>> as a separate services, where VNFM might be (and probably will be) supplied >>>> jointly with a vendor's specific VNF. >>>> In addition, it's possible that VNFC components will not be able to be >>>> placed on the same machine - anti-affinity rules. >>>> Talking in NFV terminology, we need to have a new OpenStack Services which >>>> (from what I've understood from the document you sent) is called Adv >>>> Service and is responsible to be: >>>> 1) NFVO - which is using Nova to provision new Service VMs and Neutron to >>>> establish connectivity and service chaining >>>> 2) Service Catalog - to accommodate multiple VNF services. Question: the >>>> same problem exists with Trove which need a catalog for multiple concrete >>>> DB implementations. Do you know which solution they will take for Juno? >>>> 2) Infrastructure for VNFM plugins - which will be called by NFVO to >>>> decide where Service VM should be placed and which LSI should be >>>> provisioned on these Service VMs. >>>> >>>> This flow is more or less what was stated by NFV committee. >>>> >>>> Please let me know what you think about this and how far is that from what >>>> you planed for Service VM. >>>> In addition, I would happ
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
In the case a single service VM: you have 1 VNF composed of 1 VNFC. Specs tries to cover most cases, hence makes the simple ones looks too complex. The next question will be the type of services you want to put in this VM. If it ends up providing services to manage your VNF(C) then you will end up in the VNF infrastructure realm .. with guess what: other names :) On 26/05/2014 06n7, Isaku Yamahata wrote: > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:13:57PM +0900, > "Ogaki, Kenichi" wrote: > >> Hi All, > > Hi. > >> I’m newbie to Openstack, so I want to clarify how OpenStack can implement >> ETSI NFV Architecture. >> >> The concept of Advanced service ln ks like Network Service in ETSI NFV >> Architecture as shown in Figure 3 b elow: >> http://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Published/gs_NFV002v010101p.pdf >> >> As the functional role, VNF (Virtualized Network Function) may be >> corespondent to Logical Service Instance. >> However, in ETSI NFV Architecture, VNF is composed of VNFC (VNF Component) >> or VDU (Virtual Deployment Unit) and each VNFC orVDU instance is deployed >> as a VM. >> These VNFC or VDU instances are connected by logical or physical network >> links in a manner of a kind of service chaining, then a VNF instance is >> created. >> In the same manner, Network Service is created from one or multiple VNF(s). > > Hmm, we don't use same terminology. Is there any public documentation for > those terminology? The public docuemnts I can find is too high-level to > understand the requirement. > > The first target of servicevm project is to address the case of single > service in single VM(VNFC in NFV terminology?) at first. > Then evolve the implementation for more complex case with experiment. > > >> My question is: >> Is it possible that the current OpenStack components realize an advanced >> service in the above manner? >> Meaning, an advanced service is composed of hierarchical multiple VMs. > > I suspect no one knows. This is why we unite to make efforts for NFV. > > > thanks, > Isaku Yamahata > > >> All the best, >> Kenichi >> >> >> >>> From: Dmitry [mailto:mey...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 5:40 PM >>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit >>> >>> Hi Isaku, >>> Thank you for the updated link. I'n not sure where from I get the previous >>> one, probably from the direct Google search. >>> If we're talking about NFV Mano, it's very important to keep NFVO and VNFM >>> as a separate services, where VNFM might be (and probably will be) supplied >>> jointly with a vendor's specific VNF. >>> In addition, it's possible that VNFC components will not be able to be >>> placed on the same machine - anti-affinity rules. >>> Talking in NFV terminology, we need to have a new OpenStack Services which >>> (from what I've understood from the document you sent) is called Adv >>> Service and is responsible to be: >>> 1) NFVO - which is using Nova to provision new Service VMs and Neutron to >>> establish connectivity and service chaining >>> 2) Service Catalog - to accommodate multiple VNF services. Question: the >>> same problem exists with Trove which need a catalog for multiple concrete >>> DB implementations. Do you know which solution they will take for Juno? >>> 2) Infrastructure for VNFM plugins - which will be called by NFVO to >>> decide where Service VM should be placed and which LSI should be >>> provisioned on these Service VMs. >>> >>> This flow is more or less what was stated by NFV committee. >>> >>> Please let me know what you think about this and how far is that from what >>> you planed for Service VM. >>> In addition, I would happy to know if Service VM will be incubated for >>> Juno release. >>> >>> Thank you very much, >>> Dmitry >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Isaku Yamahata >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:54:03AM +0300, >>> Dmitry wrote: >>> >>> > HI, >>> >>> Hi. >>> >>> >>> > I would happy to get explanation of what is the difference >>> between Adv >>> >>> > Service Management< >>> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz-bErEEHJxLTGY4N
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Some comments: First 5nines is 99.999 % 7nines is a theoretical goal. 1. I disagree if talking about the VMs. Years ago we decided in Scope Alliance that HA is by definition build on top of unreliable ressources the HA framework and applications linkage is in charge of the resulting HA. VMs can stay unreliable and the Iaas model must decrease your Mean time to repair instead of trying to increase forever your MTBF. 2. Fully agree. 3. I agree for OpenStack services must be "able" to be deployed in a HA (5nine) manner. This depends as much (if not more) on the deployment, networks, hardware etc... and should not be mandate to OpenStack globally. Last but not least the resilience of the "as a service" things implemented in OpenStack (like VPN, LB, FW, etc.. ) should probably be capable of being HA. The overall goal is NFV deployments being able to use OpenStack in their environments. My 2 cents.. > > In my opinion the first and foremost requirement for NFV ( which is from > carrier class ) is 99.9 ( 5 nines ) reliability. > If we want OpenStack architecture to scale to Carrier class below are basic > thing we need to address. > > 1. There should be a framework from open-stack to support 5 nine level > reliability to Service/Tennant-VM . ? ( Example for Carrier Class NAT > Service/ SIP Service/HLR/VLR service/BRAS service) > > 2. They also should be capable of 'In-service up gradation" (ISSU) without > service disruption. > > 3. OpenStack itself should ( its own Compute Node/L3/Routing, Controller ) > have (5 nine capable) reliability. > > If we can provide such of infrastructure to NFV then we think of adding rest > of requirement . > > Let me know others/NFv people opinion for the same. > > > > Thanks & regards, > Keshava.A > > -Original Message- > From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mest...@noironetworks.com] > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 11:49 AM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Ian Wells wrote: >> I think the Service VM discussion resolved itself in a way that >> reduces the problem to a form of NFV - there are standing issues using >> VMs for services, orchestration is probably not a responsibility that >> lies in Neutron, and as such the importance is in identifying the >> problems with the plumbing features of Neutron that cause >> implementation difficulties. The end result will be that VMs >> implementing tenant services and implementing NFV should be much the >> same, with the addition of offering a multitenant interface to Openstack >> users on the tenant service VM case. >> >> Geoff Arnold is dealing with the collating of information from people >> that have made the attempt to implement service VMs. The problem >> areas should fall out of his effort. I also suspect that the key >> points of NFV that cause problems (for instance, dealing with VLANs >> and trunking) will actually appear quite high up the service VM list as well. >> -- > There is a weekly meeting for the Service VM project [1], I hope some > representatives from the NFB sub-project can make it to this meeting and > participate there. > > Thanks, > Kyle > > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ServiceVM > >> Ian. >> >> >> >> On 18 May 2014 20:01, Steve Gordon wrote: >>> >>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Sumit Naiksatam" >>>> >>>> Thanks for initiating this conversation. Unfortunately I was not >>>> able to participate during the summit on account of overlapping sessions. >>>> As has been identified in the wiki and etherpad, there seem to be >>>> obvious/potential touch points with the advanced services' >>>> discussion we are having in Neutron [1]. Our sub team, and I, will >>>> track and participate in this NFV discussion. Needless to say, we >>>> are definitely very keen to understand and accommodate the NFV >>>> requirements. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> ~Sumit. >>>> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices >>> >>> Yes, there are definitely touch points across a number of different >>> existing projects and sub teams. The consensus seemed to be that >>> while a lot of people in the community have been working in >>> independent groups on advancing the support for NFV use cases in >>> OpenStack we haven't necessarily been coordinating our efforts >
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
This is the current concept, but as far as I know the ability to create the application marketplace (multiple services from multiple vendors) and integration with Murano was discussed and pending Murano incubation acceptance. The same concept can fit ServiceVM service - multiple VNFs from multiple vendors. On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Nikhil Manchanda wrote: > > Isaku Yamahata writes: > > > [...] > >> 2) Service Catalog - to accommodate multiple VNF services. Question: the > >> same problem exists with Trove which need a catalog for multiple > concrete > >> DB implementations. Do you know which solution they will take for Juno? > > > > Regarding to Trove, I don't know. > > Any Trove developer, can you comment on it? > > > > Trove doesn't require multiple entries in the service catalog to support > multiple datastore implementations. Trove internally has a concept of > datastore type (e.g. mysql, redis, etc) and version; the same Trove > service (at the same endpoint) is able to provision DB instances > according to the type and version specified in the instance-create > request. > > Additionally, operators also have the option of setting a default type / > version so users don't need to explicitly specify this information as > part of the create request. > > Thanks, > Nikhil > > ___ > 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Isaku Yamahata writes: > [...] >> 2) Service Catalog - to accommodate multiple VNF services. Question: the >> same problem exists with Trove which need a catalog for multiple concrete >> DB implementations. Do you know which solution they will take for Juno? > > Regarding to Trove, I don't know. > Any Trove developer, can you comment on it? > Trove doesn't require multiple entries in the service catalog to support multiple datastore implementations. Trove internally has a concept of datastore type (e.g. mysql, redis, etc) and version; the same Trove service (at the same endpoint) is able to provision DB instances according to the type and version specified in the instance-create request. Additionally, operators also have the option of setting a default type / version so users don't need to explicitly specify this information as part of the create request. Thanks, Nikhil ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Hi Kenichi and Isaku, Thanks for bringing this to discussion. IMHO, NFV ETSI drafts are still evolving and it is good that we should keep track of these drafts so that NFV and Service VM teams will align to these drafts for NFV deployments. Also, NFV ETSI drafts has robust architecture, which we have to infuse it in Service VM architecture for aligning with NFV ETSI drafts and discussions. Any comments/suggestions appreciated. Regards, Balaji.P > -Original Message- > From: Isaku Yamahata [mailto:isaku.yamah...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 10:17 AM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Cc: isaku.yamah...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:13:57PM +0900, "Ogaki, Kenichi" > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > Hi. > > > I'm newbie to Openstack, so I want to clarify how OpenStack can > > implement ETSI NFV Architecture. > > > > The concept of Advanced service looks like Network Service in ETSI NFV > > Architecture as shown in Figure 3 below: > > http://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Published/gs_NFV002v010101p.pdf > > > > As the functional role, VNF (Virtualized Network Function) may be > > corespondent to Logical Service Instance. > > However, in ETSI NFV Architecture, VNF is composed of VNFC (VNF > > Component) or VDU (Virtual Deployment Unit) and each VNFC or VDU > > instance is deployed as a VM. > > These VNFC or VDU instances are connected by logical or physical > > network links in a manner of a kind of service chaining, then a VNF > > instance is created. > > In the same manner, Network Service is created from one or multiple > VNF(s). > > Hmm, we don't use same terminology. Is there any public documentation for > those terminology? The public docuemnts I can find is too high-level to > understand the requirement. > > The first target of servicevm project is to address the case of single > service in single VM(VNFC in NFV terminology?) at first. > Then evolve the implementation for more complex case with experiment. > > > > My question is: > > Is it possible that the current OpenStack components realize an > > advanced service in the above manner? > > Meaning, an advanced service is composed of hierarchical multiple VMs. > > I suspect no one knows. This is why we unite to make efforts for NFV. > > > thanks, > Isaku Yamahata > > > > All the best, > > Kenichi > > > > > > > > > From: Dmitry [mailto:mey...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 5:40 PM > > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > > > > > Hi Isaku, > > > Thank you for the updated link. I'n not sure where from I get the > > > previous one, probably from the direct Google search. > > > If we're talking about NFV Mano, it's very important to keep NFVO > > > and VNFM as a separate services, where VNFM might be (and probably > > > will be) supplied jointly with a vendor's specific VNF. > > > In addition, it's possible that VNFC components will not be able to > > > be placed on the same machine - anti-affinity rules. > > > Talking in NFV terminology, we need to have a new OpenStack Services > > > which (from what I've understood from the document you sent) is > > > called Adv Service and is responsible to be: > > > 1) NFVO - which is using Nova to provision new Service VMs and > > > Neutron to establish connectivity and service chaining > > > 2) Service Catalog - to accommodate multiple VNF services. Question: > > > the same problem exists with Trove which need a catalog for multiple > > > concrete DB implementations. Do you know which solution they will > take for Juno? > > > 2) Infrastructure for VNFM plugins - which will be called by NFVO to > > > decide where Service VM should be placed and which LSI should be > > > provisioned on these Service VMs. > > > > > > This flow is more or less what was stated by NFV committee. > > > > > > Please let me know what you think about this and how far is that > > > from what you planed for Service VM. > > > In addition, I would happy to know if Service VM will be incubated > > > for Juno release. > > > > > > Thank you very much, > > > Dmitry > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Isaku Yamahata > > &g
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Hi Isaku, Thank you for your reply. 2014-05-26 13:47 GMT+09:00 Isaku Yamahata : > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:13:57PM +0900, > "Ogaki, Kenichi" wrote: > > > Hi All, > > Hi. > > > I’m newbie to Openstack, so I want to clarify how OpenStack can implement > > ETSI NFV Architecture. > > > > The concept of Advanced service looks like Network Service in ETSI NFV > > Architecture as shown in Figure 3 below: > > http://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Published/gs_NFV002v010101p.pdf > > > > As the functional role, VNF (Virtualized Network Function) may be > > corespondent to Logical Service Instance. > > However, in ETSI NFV Architecture, VNF is composed of VNFC (VNF > Component) > > or VDU (Virtual Deployment Unit) and each VNFC or VDU instance is > deployed > > as a VM. > > These VNFC or VDU instances are connected by logical or physical network > > links in a manner of a kind of service chaining, then a VNF instance is > > created. > > In the same manner, Network Service is created from one or multiple > VNF(s). > > Hmm, we don't use same terminology. Is there any public documentation for > those terminology? The public docuemnts I can find is too high-level to > understand the requirement. > Most of documents haven’t been publicized yet, But, if your affiliation is a member or participant of ETSI NFV ISG, you can get the final or stable working group drafts below. https://portal.etsi.org/tb.aspx?tbid=789&SubTB=789,795,796,801,800,798,799,797,802#lt-50612-drafts DGS/NFV-MAN001, DGS/NFV-SWA001 should help you to understand the architecture. > > The first target of servicevm project is to address the case of single > service in single VM(VNFC in NFV terminology?) at first. > Then evolve the implementation for more complex case with experiment. > > I understand the current servicevm project is targeting an advanced service composed of single VM. Thanks, Kenichi > > My question is: > > Is it possible that the current OpenStack components realize an advanced > > service in the above manner? > > Meaning, an advanced service is composed of hierarchical multiple VMs. > > I suspect no one knows. This is why we unite to make efforts for NFV. > > > thanks, > Isaku Yamahata > > > > All the best, > > Kenichi > > > > > > > > > From: Dmitry [mailto:mey...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 5:40 PM > > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > > > > > Hi Isaku, > > > Thank you for the updated link. I'n not sure where from I get the > previous > > > one, probably from the direct Google search. > > > If we're talking about NFV Mano, it's very important to keep NFVO and > VNFM > > > as a separate services, where VNFM might be (and probably will be) > supplied > > > jointly with a vendor's specific VNF. > > > In addition, it's possible that VNFC components will not be able to be > > > placed on the same machine - anti-affinity rules. > > > Talking in NFV terminology, we need to have a new OpenStack Services > which > > > (from what I've understood from the document you sent) is called Adv > > > Service and is responsible to be: > > > 1) NFVO - which is using Nova to provision new Service VMs and Neutron > to > > > establish connectivity and service chaining > > > 2) Service Catalog - to accommodate multiple VNF services. Question: > the > > > same problem exists with Trove which need a catalog for multiple > concrete > > > DB implementations. Do you know which solution they will take for Juno? > > > 2) Infrastructure for VNFM plugins - which will be called by NFVO to > > > decide where Service VM should be placed and which LSI should be > > > provisioned on these Service VMs. > > > > > > This flow is more or less what was stated by NFV committee. > > > > > > Please let me know what you think about this and how far is that from > what > > > you planed for Service VM. > > > In addition, I would happy to know if Service VM will be incubated for > > > Juno release. > > > > > > Thank you very much, > > > Dmitry > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Isaku Yamahata < > isaku.yamah...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:54:03AM +0300, > > > Dmitry wrote:
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:40:02AM +0300, Dmitry wrote: > Hi Isaku, > Thank you for the updated link. I'n not sure where from I get the previous > one, probably from the direct Google search. > If we're talking about NFV Mano, it's very important to keep NFVO and VNFM > as a separate services, where VNFM might be (and probably will be) supplied > jointly with a vendor's specific VNF. Can you please point the public documentations that describes those terminology and architecture? The pptx slide you pointed out below describes only the overview. The public documents I can find, ETSO GS NFV 001,002,003,004, NFV-PER002 and white paper describes them in very high level. > In addition, it's possible that VNFC components will not be able to be > placed on the same machine - anti-affinity rules. > Talking in NFV terminology, we need to have a new OpenStack Services which > (from what I've understood from the document you sent) is called Adv > Service and is responsible to be: Probably it will corresponds to vm/service scheduler. Eventually it would be integrated into Gantt. > 1) NFVO - which is using Nova to provision new Service VMs and Neutron to > establish connectivity and service chaining > 2) Service Catalog - to accommodate multiple VNF services. Question: the > same problem exists with Trove which need a catalog for multiple concrete > DB implementations. Do you know which solution they will take for Juno? Regarding to Trove, I don't know. Any Trove developer, can you comment on it? > 2) Infrastructure for VNFM plugins - which will be called by NFVO to decide > where Service VM should be placed and which LSI should be provisioned on > these Service VMs. I don't know what VNFM plugins means. Can you please elaborate it? > This flow is more or less what was stated by NFV committee. Where is publicly available documents that describe it? > Please let me know what you think about this and how far is that from what > you planed for Service VM. The first things to do is to clarify the requirement of NFV and to unify the terminology(or something like terminology conversion matrix). and then analyze the gap. The first target of servicevm is to address the case of single function in single VM(VNFC in NFV terminology?). Then evolve the implementation for more complex case like forwarding graph (VNF and VNF-FG in NFV terminology?). > In addition, I would happy to know if Service VM will be incubated for Juno > release. Yea, I'm going to create the first repo in stackforge in one or two weeks. thanks, Isaku Yamahata > Thank you very much, > Dmitry > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Isaku Yamahata > wrote: > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:54:03AM +0300, > > Dmitry wrote: > > > > > HI, > > > > Hi. > > > > > I would happy to get explanation of what is the difference between Adv > > > Service Management< > > https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz-bErEEHJxLTGY4NUVvTzRDaEk/edit>from > > > the Service VM > > > > The above document is stale. > > the right one is > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pwFVV8UavvQkBz92bT-BweBAiIZoMJP0NPAO4-60XFY/edit?pli=1 > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZWDDTjwhIUedyipkDztM0_nBYgfCEP9Q77hhn1ZduCA/edit?pli=1# > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ServiceVM > > > > Anyway how did you find the link? I'd like to remove stale links. > > > > > > > and NFVO > > > orchestration< > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-opsawg-6.pdf>from > > > NFV Mano. > > > The most interesting part if service provider management as part of the > > > service catalog. > > > > servicevm corresponds to (a part of) NFV orchestrator and VNF manager. > > Especially life cycle management of VMs/services. configuration of > > services. > > I think the above document and the NFV documents only give high level > > statement of components, right? > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Dmitry > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Isaku Yamahata < > > isaku.yamah...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, I will also attend the NFV IRC meeting. > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > Isaku Yamahata > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:23:22PM -0700, > > > > Stephen Wong wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > I am part of the ServiceVM team and I will attend the NFV IRC > > > > meetings. > >
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:13:57PM +0900, "Ogaki, Kenichi" wrote: > Hi All, Hi. > I’m newbie to Openstack, so I want to clarify how OpenStack can implement > ETSI NFV Architecture. > > The concept of Advanced service looks like Network Service in ETSI NFV > Architecture as shown in Figure 3 below: > http://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Published/gs_NFV002v010101p.pdf > > As the functional role, VNF (Virtualized Network Function) may be > corespondent to Logical Service Instance. > However, in ETSI NFV Architecture, VNF is composed of VNFC (VNF Component) > or VDU (Virtual Deployment Unit) and each VNFC or VDU instance is deployed > as a VM. > These VNFC or VDU instances are connected by logical or physical network > links in a manner of a kind of service chaining, then a VNF instance is > created. > In the same manner, Network Service is created from one or multiple VNF(s). Hmm, we don't use same terminology. Is there any public documentation for those terminology? The public docuemnts I can find is too high-level to understand the requirement. The first target of servicevm project is to address the case of single service in single VM(VNFC in NFV terminology?) at first. Then evolve the implementation for more complex case with experiment. > My question is: > Is it possible that the current OpenStack components realize an advanced > service in the above manner? > Meaning, an advanced service is composed of hierarchical multiple VMs. I suspect no one knows. This is why we unite to make efforts for NFV. thanks, Isaku Yamahata > All the best, > Kenichi > > > > > From: Dmitry [mailto:mey...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 5:40 PM > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > > > Hi Isaku, > > Thank you for the updated link. I'n not sure where from I get the previous > > one, probably from the direct Google search. > > If we're talking about NFV Mano, it's very important to keep NFVO and VNFM > > as a separate services, where VNFM might be (and probably will be) supplied > > jointly with a vendor's specific VNF. > > In addition, it's possible that VNFC components will not be able to be > > placed on the same machine - anti-affinity rules. > > Talking in NFV terminology, we need to have a new OpenStack Services which > > (from what I've understood from the document you sent) is called Adv > > Service and is responsible to be: > > 1) NFVO - which is using Nova to provision new Service VMs and Neutron to > > establish connectivity and service chaining > > 2) Service Catalog - to accommodate multiple VNF services. Question: the > > same problem exists with Trove which need a catalog for multiple concrete > > DB implementations. Do you know which solution they will take for Juno? > > 2) Infrastructure for VNFM plugins - which will be called by NFVO to > > decide where Service VM should be placed and which LSI should be > > provisioned on these Service VMs. > > > > This flow is more or less what was stated by NFV committee. > > > > Please let me know what you think about this and how far is that from what > > you planed for Service VM. > > In addition, I would happy to know if Service VM will be incubated for > > Juno release. > > > > Thank you very much, > > Dmitry > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Isaku Yamahata > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:54:03AM +0300, > > Dmitry wrote: > > > > > HI, > > > > Hi. > > > > > > > I would happy to get explanation of what is the difference > > between Adv > > > > > Service Management< > > https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz-bErEEHJxLTGY4NUVvTzRDaEk/edit>from > > > the Service VM > > > > The above document is stale. > > the right one is > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pwFVV8UavvQkBz92bT-BweBAiIZoMJP0NPAO4-60XFY/edit?pli=1 > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZWDDTjwhIUedyipkDztM0_nBYgfCEP9Q77hhn1ZduCA/edit?pli=1# > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ServiceVM > > > > Anyway how did you find the link? I'd like to remove stale links. > > > > > > > and NFVO > > > orchestration< > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-opsawg-6.pdf>from > > > > > NFV Mano. > > > The most interestin
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Hi, Pl find the reply inline Thanks & regards, Keshava.A -Original Message- From: Alan Kavanagh [mailto:alan.kavan...@ericsson.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:24 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); Kyle Mestery Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit Hi Just wanted to comment on some points below inline. /Alan -Original Message- From: A, Keshava [mailto:keshav...@hp.com] Sent: May-22-14 2:25 AM To: Kyle Mestery; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit Hi In my opinion the first and foremost requirement for NFV ( which is from carrier class ) is 99.9 ( 5 nines ) reliability. If we want OpenStack architecture to scale to Carrier class below are basic thing we need to address. 1. There should be a framework from open-stack to support 5 nine level reliability to Service/Tennant-VM . ? ( Example for Carrier Class NAT Service/ SIP Service/HLR/VLR service/BRAS service) AK--> I believe what is important is for Openstack to support various degrees of configurations for a given tenant network. The reliability of the network is outside of Openstack, but where Openstack plays a role here imho is for check and validation of the network when its been provisioned and configured. Similarly for VM to ensure we have sufficient check and validation (watchdogs/event call backs etc etc) so that we can "expose faults and act on them". Keshava: In order to provide the reliability to Service/Tenant-VM don't you agree open-stack network also has to be reliable ? Without OpenStack having network reliability to extend of 5 nine can we give the same to Service/Tenant-VM ? 2. They also should be capable of 'In-service up gradation" (ISSU) without service disruption. AK--> Fully agree, its imperative to be able to upgrade Openstack without any service interruption. 3. OpenStack itself should ( its own Compute Node/L3/Routing, Controller ) have (5 nine capable) reliability. AK--> If we are referring to Openstack controllers/agents/db's etc then yes makes perfect sense, I would however stop short on saying you can achieve 5 nine's in various ways and its typically up to the vendors themselves how they want to implement this even in OS. Keshava: I think we better to talk with one of the Tennant-VM hosted on OpenStack as example discuss more about this. So that it will be clear and we will have common language to speak. If we can provide such of infrastructure to NFV then we think of adding rest of requirement . Let me know others/NFv people opinion for the same. Thanks & regards, Keshava.A -Original Message- From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mest...@noironetworks.com] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 11:49 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Ian Wells wrote: > I think the Service VM discussion resolved itself in a way that > reduces the problem to a form of NFV - there are standing issues using > VMs for services, orchestration is probably not a responsibility that > lies in Neutron, and as such the importance is in identifying the > problems with the plumbing features of Neutron that cause > implementation difficulties. The end result will be that VMs > implementing tenant services and implementing NFV should be much the > same, with the addition of offering a multitenant interface to Openstack > users on the tenant service VM case. > > Geoff Arnold is dealing with the collating of information from people > that have made the attempt to implement service VMs. The problem > areas should fall out of his effort. I also suspect that the key > points of NFV that cause problems (for instance, dealing with VLANs > and trunking) will actually appear quite high up the service VM list as well. > -- There is a weekly meeting for the Service VM project [1], I hope some representatives from the NFB sub-project can make it to this meeting and participate there. Thanks, Kyle [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ServiceVM > Ian. > > > > On 18 May 2014 20:01, Steve Gordon wrote: >> >> - Original Message - >> > From: "Sumit Naiksatam" >> > >> > Thanks for initiating this conversation. Unfortunately I was not >> > able to participate during the summit on account of overlapping sessions. >> > As has been identified in the wiki and etherpad, there seem to be >> > obvious/potential touch points with the advanced services' >> > discussion we are having in Neutron [1]. Our sub team, and I, will >> > track and participate in this NFV discussion. N
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Hi All, I’m newbie to Openstack, so I want to clarify how OpenStack can implement ETSI NFV Architecture. The concept of Advanced service looks like Network Service in ETSI NFV Architecture as shown in Figure 3 below: http://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Published/gs_NFV002v010101p.pdf As the functional role, VNF (Virtualized Network Function) may be corespondent to Logical Service Instance. However, in ETSI NFV Architecture, VNF is composed of VNFC (VNF Component) or VDU (Virtual Deployment Unit) and each VNFC or VDU instance is deployed as a VM. These VNFC or VDU instances are connected by logical or physical network links in a manner of a kind of service chaining, then a VNF instance is created. In the same manner, Network Service is created from one or multiple VNF(s). My question is: Is it possible that the current OpenStack components realize an advanced service in the above manner? Meaning, an advanced service is composed of hierarchical multiple VMs. All the best, Kenichi > From: Dmitry [mailto:mey...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 5:40 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > Hi Isaku, > Thank you for the updated link. I'n not sure where from I get the previous > one, probably from the direct Google search. > If we're talking about NFV Mano, it's very important to keep NFVO and VNFM > as a separate services, where VNFM might be (and probably will be) supplied > jointly with a vendor's specific VNF. > In addition, it's possible that VNFC components will not be able to be > placed on the same machine - anti-affinity rules. > Talking in NFV terminology, we need to have a new OpenStack Services which > (from what I've understood from the document you sent) is called Adv > Service and is responsible to be: > 1) NFVO - which is using Nova to provision new Service VMs and Neutron to > establish connectivity and service chaining > 2) Service Catalog - to accommodate multiple VNF services. Question: the > same problem exists with Trove which need a catalog for multiple concrete > DB implementations. Do you know which solution they will take for Juno? > 2) Infrastructure for VNFM plugins - which will be called by NFVO to > decide where Service VM should be placed and which LSI should be > provisioned on these Service VMs. > > This flow is more or less what was stated by NFV committee. > > Please let me know what you think about this and how far is that from what > you planed for Service VM. > In addition, I would happy to know if Service VM will be incubated for > Juno release. > > Thank you very much, > Dmitry > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Isaku Yamahata > wrote: > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:54:03AM +0300, > Dmitry wrote: > > > HI, > > Hi. > > > > I would happy to get explanation of what is the difference > between Adv > > > Service Management< > https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz-bErEEHJxLTGY4NUVvTzRDaEk/edit>from > > the Service VM > > The above document is stale. > the right one is > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pwFVV8UavvQkBz92bT-BweBAiIZoMJP0NPAO4-60XFY/edit?pli=1 > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZWDDTjwhIUedyipkDztM0_nBYgfCEP9Q77hhn1ZduCA/edit?pli=1# > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ServiceVM > > Anyway how did you find the link? I'd like to remove stale links. > > > > and NFVO > > orchestration< > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-opsawg-6.pdf>from > > > NFV Mano. > > The most interesting part if service provider management as part > of the > > service catalog. > > > servicevm corresponds to (a part of) NFV orchestrator and VNF > manager. > Especially life cycle management of VMs/services. configuration of > services. > I think the above document and the NFV documents only give high > level > statement of components, right? > > thanks, > > > > > > Thanks, > > Dmitry > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Isaku Yamahata < > isaku.yamah...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > Hi, I will also attend the NFV IRC meeting. > > > > > > thanks, > > > Isaku Yamahata > > > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:23:22PM -0700, > > > Stephen Wong wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > >
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Hi Just wanted to comment on some points below inline. /Alan -Original Message- From: A, Keshava [mailto:keshav...@hp.com] Sent: May-22-14 2:25 AM To: Kyle Mestery; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit Hi In my opinion the first and foremost requirement for NFV ( which is from carrier class ) is 99.9 ( 5 nines ) reliability. If we want OpenStack architecture to scale to Carrier class below are basic thing we need to address. 1. There should be a framework from open-stack to support 5 nine level reliability to Service/Tennant-VM . ? ( Example for Carrier Class NAT Service/ SIP Service/HLR/VLR service/BRAS service) AK--> I believe what is important is for Openstack to support various degrees of configurations for a given tenant network. The reliability of the network is outside of Openstack, but where Openstack plays a role here imho is for check and validation of the network when its been provisioned and configured. Similarly for VM to ensure we have sufficient check and validation (watchdogs/event call backs etc etc) so that we can "expose faults and act on them". 2. They also should be capable of 'In-service up gradation" (ISSU) without service disruption. AK--> Fully agree, its imperative to be able to upgrade Openstack without any service interruption. 3. OpenStack itself should ( its own Compute Node/L3/Routing, Controller ) have (5 nine capable) reliability. AK--> If we are referring to Openstack controllers/agents/db's etc then yes makes perfect sense, I would however stop short on saying you can achieve 5 nine's in various ways and its typically up to the vendors themselves how they want to implement this even in OS. If we can provide such of infrastructure to NFV then we think of adding rest of requirement . Let me know others/NFv people opinion for the same. Thanks & regards, Keshava.A -Original Message- From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mest...@noironetworks.com] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 11:49 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Ian Wells wrote: > I think the Service VM discussion resolved itself in a way that > reduces the problem to a form of NFV - there are standing issues using > VMs for services, orchestration is probably not a responsibility that > lies in Neutron, and as such the importance is in identifying the > problems with the plumbing features of Neutron that cause > implementation difficulties. The end result will be that VMs > implementing tenant services and implementing NFV should be much the > same, with the addition of offering a multitenant interface to Openstack > users on the tenant service VM case. > > Geoff Arnold is dealing with the collating of information from people > that have made the attempt to implement service VMs. The problem > areas should fall out of his effort. I also suspect that the key > points of NFV that cause problems (for instance, dealing with VLANs > and trunking) will actually appear quite high up the service VM list as well. > -- There is a weekly meeting for the Service VM project [1], I hope some representatives from the NFB sub-project can make it to this meeting and participate there. Thanks, Kyle [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ServiceVM > Ian. > > > > On 18 May 2014 20:01, Steve Gordon wrote: >> >> - Original Message - >> > From: "Sumit Naiksatam" >> > >> > Thanks for initiating this conversation. Unfortunately I was not >> > able to participate during the summit on account of overlapping sessions. >> > As has been identified in the wiki and etherpad, there seem to be >> > obvious/potential touch points with the advanced services' >> > discussion we are having in Neutron [1]. Our sub team, and I, will >> > track and participate in this NFV discussion. Needless to say, we >> > are definitely very keen to understand and accommodate the NFV >> > requirements. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > ~Sumit. >> > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices >> >> Yes, there are definitely touch points across a number of different >> existing projects and sub teams. The consensus seemed to be that >> while a lot of people in the community have been working in >> independent groups on advancing the support for NFV use cases in >> OpenStack we haven't necessarily been coordinating our efforts >> effectively. Hopefully having a cross-project sub team will allow us to do >> this. >> >> In the BoF sessions w
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
- Original Message - > From: "Kevin Benton" > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:48:37 AM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > >3. OpenStack itself should ( its own Compute Node/L3/Routing, Controller > ) have (5 nine capable) reliability. > > Can you elaborate on this a little more? Reliability is pretty deployment > specific (e.g. database chosen, number of cluster members, etc). I'm sure > nobody would disagree that OpenStack should be reliable, but without > specific issues to address it doesn't really give us a clear target. > > Thanks, > Kevin Benton I think this comment applies equally to the other items listed. There seemed to be agreement at the BoF that one of our key tasks/challenges is to boil down such high level NFV requirements to create actionable feature requests/proposals in the context of OpenStack. Thanks, Steve ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Hi Isaku, Thank you for the updated link. I'n not sure where from I get the previous one, probably from the direct Google search. If we're talking about NFV Mano, it's very important to keep NFVO and VNFM as a separate services, where VNFM might be (and probably will be) supplied jointly with a vendor's specific VNF. In addition, it's possible that VNFC components will not be able to be placed on the same machine - anti-affinity rules. Talking in NFV terminology, we need to have a new OpenStack Services which (from what I've understood from the document you sent) is called Adv Service and is responsible to be: 1) NFVO - which is using Nova to provision new Service VMs and Neutron to establish connectivity and service chaining 2) Service Catalog - to accommodate multiple VNF services. Question: the same problem exists with Trove which need a catalog for multiple concrete DB implementations. Do you know which solution they will take for Juno? 2) Infrastructure for VNFM plugins - which will be called by NFVO to decide where Service VM should be placed and which LSI should be provisioned on these Service VMs. This flow is more or less what was stated by NFV committee. Please let me know what you think about this and how far is that from what you planed for Service VM. In addition, I would happy to know if Service VM will be incubated for Juno release. Thank you very much, Dmitry On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Isaku Yamahata wrote: > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:54:03AM +0300, > Dmitry wrote: > > > HI, > > Hi. > > > I would happy to get explanation of what is the difference between Adv > > Service Management< > https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz-bErEEHJxLTGY4NUVvTzRDaEk/edit>from > > the Service VM > > The above document is stale. > the right one is > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pwFVV8UavvQkBz92bT-BweBAiIZoMJP0NPAO4-60XFY/edit?pli=1 > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZWDDTjwhIUedyipkDztM0_nBYgfCEP9Q77hhn1ZduCA/edit?pli=1# > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ServiceVM > > Anyway how did you find the link? I'd like to remove stale links. > > > > and NFVO > > orchestration< > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-opsawg-6.pdf>from > > NFV Mano. > > The most interesting part if service provider management as part of the > > service catalog. > > servicevm corresponds to (a part of) NFV orchestrator and VNF manager. > Especially life cycle management of VMs/services. configuration of > services. > I think the above document and the NFV documents only give high level > statement of components, right? > > thanks, > > > > > Thanks, > > Dmitry > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Isaku Yamahata < > isaku.yamah...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > Hi, I will also attend the NFV IRC meeting. > > > > > > thanks, > > > Isaku Yamahata > > > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:23:22PM -0700, > > > Stephen Wong wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I am part of the ServiceVM team and I will attend the NFV IRC > > > meetings. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > - Stephen > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Chris Wright > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > * balaj...@freescale.com (balaj...@freescale.com) wrote: > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > > > From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mest...@noironetworks.com] > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:19 AM > > > > > > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage > questions) > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design > > > summit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Ian Wells < > ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I think the Service VM discussion resolved itself in a way > that > > > > > > > > reduces the problem to a form of NFV - there are standing > issues > > > > > using > > > > > > > > VMs for services, orchestration is probably not a > responsibility > > > that > > > > > > > > lies in Neutron, and as such the importance is in > identifying the > > > > > > > > problems with the plumbing features of Neutron that cause > > > > > > > > implementation difficulties. The end result wil
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
>3. OpenStack itself should ( its own Compute Node/L3/Routing, Controller ) have (5 nine capable) reliability. Can you elaborate on this a little more? Reliability is pretty deployment specific (e.g. database chosen, number of cluster members, etc). I'm sure nobody would disagree that OpenStack should be reliable, but without specific issues to address it doesn't really give us a clear target. Thanks, Kevin Benton On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:24 PM, A, Keshava wrote: > Hi > > In my opinion the first and foremost requirement for NFV ( which is from > carrier class ) is 99.9 ( 5 nines ) reliability. > If we want OpenStack architecture to scale to Carrier class below are > basic thing we need to address. > > 1. There should be a framework from open-stack to support 5 nine level > reliability to Service/Tennant-VM . ? ( Example for Carrier Class NAT > Service/ SIP Service/HLR/VLR service/BRAS service) > > 2. They also should be capable of 'In-service up gradation" (ISSU) without > service disruption. > > 3. OpenStack itself should ( its own Compute Node/L3/Routing, Controller > ) have (5 nine capable) reliability. > > If we can provide such of infrastructure to NFV then we think of adding > rest of requirement . > > Let me know others/NFv people opinion for the same. > > > > Thanks & regards, > Keshava.A > > -Original Message- > From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mest...@noironetworks.com] > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 11:49 AM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Ian Wells wrote: > > I think the Service VM discussion resolved itself in a way that > > reduces the problem to a form of NFV - there are standing issues using > > VMs for services, orchestration is probably not a responsibility that > > lies in Neutron, and as such the importance is in identifying the > > problems with the plumbing features of Neutron that cause > > implementation difficulties. The end result will be that VMs > > implementing tenant services and implementing NFV should be much the > > same, with the addition of offering a multitenant interface to Openstack > users on the tenant service VM case. > > > > Geoff Arnold is dealing with the collating of information from people > > that have made the attempt to implement service VMs. The problem > > areas should fall out of his effort. I also suspect that the key > > points of NFV that cause problems (for instance, dealing with VLANs > > and trunking) will actually appear quite high up the service VM list as > well. > > -- > There is a weekly meeting for the Service VM project [1], I hope some > representatives from the NFB sub-project can make it to this meeting and > participate there. > > Thanks, > Kyle > > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ServiceVM > > > Ian. > > > > > > > > On 18 May 2014 20:01, Steve Gordon wrote: > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> > From: "Sumit Naiksatam" > >> > > >> > Thanks for initiating this conversation. Unfortunately I was not > >> > able to participate during the summit on account of overlapping > sessions. > >> > As has been identified in the wiki and etherpad, there seem to be > >> > obvious/potential touch points with the advanced services' > >> > discussion we are having in Neutron [1]. Our sub team, and I, will > >> > track and participate in this NFV discussion. Needless to say, we > >> > are definitely very keen to understand and accommodate the NFV > requirements. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > ~Sumit. > >> > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices > >> > >> Yes, there are definitely touch points across a number of different > >> existing projects and sub teams. The consensus seemed to be that > >> while a lot of people in the community have been working in > >> independent groups on advancing the support for NFV use cases in > >> OpenStack we haven't necessarily been coordinating our efforts > >> effectively. Hopefully having a cross-project sub team will allow us to > do this. > >> > >> In the BoF sessions we started adding relevant *existing* blueprints > >> on the wiki page, we probably need to come up with a more robust way > >> to track these from launchpad :). Further proposals will no doubt > >> need to be built out from use cases as we discuss them further: &g
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:54:03AM +0300, Dmitry wrote: > HI, Hi. > I would happy to get explanation of what is the difference between Adv > Service > Management<https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz-bErEEHJxLTGY4NUVvTzRDaEk/edit>from > the Service VM The above document is stale. the right one is https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pwFVV8UavvQkBz92bT-BweBAiIZoMJP0NPAO4-60XFY/edit?pli=1 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZWDDTjwhIUedyipkDztM0_nBYgfCEP9Q77hhn1ZduCA/edit?pli=1# https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ServiceVM Anyway how did you find the link? I'd like to remove stale links. > and NFVO > orchestration<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-opsawg-6.pdf>from > NFV Mano. > The most interesting part if service provider management as part of the > service catalog. servicevm corresponds to (a part of) NFV orchestrator and VNF manager. Especially life cycle management of VMs/services. configuration of services. I think the above document and the NFV documents only give high level statement of components, right? thanks, > > Thanks, > Dmitry > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Isaku Yamahata > wrote: > > > Hi, I will also attend the NFV IRC meeting. > > > > thanks, > > Isaku Yamahata > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:23:22PM -0700, > > Stephen Wong wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am part of the ServiceVM team and I will attend the NFV IRC > > meetings. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > - Stephen > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Chris Wright > > wrote: > > > > > > > * balaj...@freescale.com (balaj...@freescale.com) wrote: > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mest...@noironetworks.com] > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:19 AM > > > > > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > > > > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design > > summit > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Ian Wells > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think the Service VM discussion resolved itself in a way that > > > > > > > reduces the problem to a form of NFV - there are standing issues > > > > using > > > > > > > VMs for services, orchestration is probably not a responsibility > > that > > > > > > > lies in Neutron, and as such the importance is in identifying the > > > > > > > problems with the plumbing features of Neutron that cause > > > > > > > implementation difficulties. The end result will be that VMs > > > > > > > implementing tenant services and implementing NFV should be much > > the > > > > > > > same, with the addition of offering a multitenant interface to > > > > > > Openstack users on the tenant service VM case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Geoff Arnold is dealing with the collating of information from > > people > > > > > > > that have made the attempt to implement service VMs. The problem > > > > > > > areas should fall out of his effort. I also suspect that the key > > > > > > > points of NFV that cause problems (for instance, dealing with > > VLANs > > > > > > > and trunking) will actually appear quite high up the service VM > > list > > > > as > > > > > > well. > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > There is a weekly meeting for the Service VM project [1], I hope > > some > > > > > > representatives from the NFB sub-project can make it to this > > meeting > > > > and > > > > > > participate there. > > > > > [P Balaji-B37839] I agree with Kyle, so that we will have enough > > synch > > > > between Service VM and NFV goals. > > > > > > > > Makes good sense. Will make sure to get someone there. > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > -chris > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > Isaku Yamahata > > > > ___ > > 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 -- Isaku Yamahata ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Hi In my opinion the first and foremost requirement for NFV ( which is from carrier class ) is 99.9 ( 5 nines ) reliability. If we want OpenStack architecture to scale to Carrier class below are basic thing we need to address. 1. There should be a framework from open-stack to support 5 nine level reliability to Service/Tennant-VM . ? ( Example for Carrier Class NAT Service/ SIP Service/HLR/VLR service/BRAS service) 2. They also should be capable of 'In-service up gradation" (ISSU) without service disruption. 3. OpenStack itself should ( its own Compute Node/L3/Routing, Controller ) have (5 nine capable) reliability. If we can provide such of infrastructure to NFV then we think of adding rest of requirement . Let me know others/NFv people opinion for the same. Thanks & regards, Keshava.A -Original Message- From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mest...@noironetworks.com] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 11:49 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Ian Wells wrote: > I think the Service VM discussion resolved itself in a way that > reduces the problem to a form of NFV - there are standing issues using > VMs for services, orchestration is probably not a responsibility that > lies in Neutron, and as such the importance is in identifying the > problems with the plumbing features of Neutron that cause > implementation difficulties. The end result will be that VMs > implementing tenant services and implementing NFV should be much the > same, with the addition of offering a multitenant interface to Openstack > users on the tenant service VM case. > > Geoff Arnold is dealing with the collating of information from people > that have made the attempt to implement service VMs. The problem > areas should fall out of his effort. I also suspect that the key > points of NFV that cause problems (for instance, dealing with VLANs > and trunking) will actually appear quite high up the service VM list as well. > -- There is a weekly meeting for the Service VM project [1], I hope some representatives from the NFB sub-project can make it to this meeting and participate there. Thanks, Kyle [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ServiceVM > Ian. > > > > On 18 May 2014 20:01, Steve Gordon wrote: >> >> - Original Message - >> > From: "Sumit Naiksatam" >> > >> > Thanks for initiating this conversation. Unfortunately I was not >> > able to participate during the summit on account of overlapping sessions. >> > As has been identified in the wiki and etherpad, there seem to be >> > obvious/potential touch points with the advanced services' >> > discussion we are having in Neutron [1]. Our sub team, and I, will >> > track and participate in this NFV discussion. Needless to say, we >> > are definitely very keen to understand and accommodate the NFV >> > requirements. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > ~Sumit. >> > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices >> >> Yes, there are definitely touch points across a number of different >> existing projects and sub teams. The consensus seemed to be that >> while a lot of people in the community have been working in >> independent groups on advancing the support for NFV use cases in >> OpenStack we haven't necessarily been coordinating our efforts >> effectively. Hopefully having a cross-project sub team will allow us to do >> this. >> >> In the BoF sessions we started adding relevant *existing* blueprints >> on the wiki page, we probably need to come up with a more robust way >> to track these from launchpad :). Further proposals will no doubt >> need to be built out from use cases as we discuss them further: >> >> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/NFV >> >> Feel free to add any blueprints from the Advanced Services efforts >> that were missed! >> >> Thanks, >> >> Steve >> >> ___ >> 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
HI, I would happy to get explanation of what is the difference between Adv Service Management<https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz-bErEEHJxLTGY4NUVvTzRDaEk/edit>from the Service VM and NFVO orchestration<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-opsawg-6.pdf>from NFV Mano. The most interesting part if service provider management as part of the service catalog. Thanks, Dmitry On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Isaku Yamahata wrote: > Hi, I will also attend the NFV IRC meeting. > > thanks, > Isaku Yamahata > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:23:22PM -0700, > Stephen Wong wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I am part of the ServiceVM team and I will attend the NFV IRC > meetings. > > > > Thanks, > > - Stephen > > > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Chris Wright > wrote: > > > > > * balaj...@freescale.com (balaj...@freescale.com) wrote: > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mest...@noironetworks.com] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:19 AM > > > > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > > > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design > summit > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Ian Wells > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I think the Service VM discussion resolved itself in a way that > > > > > > reduces the problem to a form of NFV - there are standing issues > > > using > > > > > > VMs for services, orchestration is probably not a responsibility > that > > > > > > lies in Neutron, and as such the importance is in identifying the > > > > > > problems with the plumbing features of Neutron that cause > > > > > > implementation difficulties. The end result will be that VMs > > > > > > implementing tenant services and implementing NFV should be much > the > > > > > > same, with the addition of offering a multitenant interface to > > > > > Openstack users on the tenant service VM case. > > > > > > > > > > > > Geoff Arnold is dealing with the collating of information from > people > > > > > > that have made the attempt to implement service VMs. The problem > > > > > > areas should fall out of his effort. I also suspect that the key > > > > > > points of NFV that cause problems (for instance, dealing with > VLANs > > > > > > and trunking) will actually appear quite high up the service VM > list > > > as > > > > > well. > > > > > > -- > > > > > There is a weekly meeting for the Service VM project [1], I hope > some > > > > > representatives from the NFB sub-project can make it to this > meeting > > > and > > > > > participate there. > > > > [P Balaji-B37839] I agree with Kyle, so that we will have enough > synch > > > between Service VM and NFV goals. > > > > > > Makes good sense. Will make sure to get someone there. > > > > > > thanks, > > > -chris > > > > > > ___ > > > 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 > > > -- > Isaku Yamahata > > ___ > 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Hi, I will also attend the NFV IRC meeting. thanks, Isaku Yamahata On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:23:22PM -0700, Stephen Wong wrote: > Hi, > > I am part of the ServiceVM team and I will attend the NFV IRC meetings. > > Thanks, > - Stephen > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Chris Wright wrote: > > > * balaj...@freescale.com (balaj...@freescale.com) wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mest...@noironetworks.com] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:19 AM > > > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Ian Wells > > > > wrote: > > > > > I think the Service VM discussion resolved itself in a way that > > > > > reduces the problem to a form of NFV - there are standing issues > > using > > > > > VMs for services, orchestration is probably not a responsibility that > > > > > lies in Neutron, and as such the importance is in identifying the > > > > > problems with the plumbing features of Neutron that cause > > > > > implementation difficulties. The end result will be that VMs > > > > > implementing tenant services and implementing NFV should be much the > > > > > same, with the addition of offering a multitenant interface to > > > > Openstack users on the tenant service VM case. > > > > > > > > > > Geoff Arnold is dealing with the collating of information from people > > > > > that have made the attempt to implement service VMs. The problem > > > > > areas should fall out of his effort. I also suspect that the key > > > > > points of NFV that cause problems (for instance, dealing with VLANs > > > > > and trunking) will actually appear quite high up the service VM list > > as > > > > well. > > > > > -- > > > > There is a weekly meeting for the Service VM project [1], I hope some > > > > representatives from the NFB sub-project can make it to this meeting > > and > > > > participate there. > > > [P Balaji-B37839] I agree with Kyle, so that we will have enough synch > > between Service VM and NFV goals. > > > > Makes good sense. Will make sure to get someone there. > > > > thanks, > > -chris > > > > ___ > > 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 -- Isaku Yamahata ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Hi Chris, Iam also interested in attending NFV IRC meetings. Regards, Balaji.P > -Original Message- > From: Chris Wright [mailto:chr...@sous-sol.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 4:18 AM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > * Stephen Wong (s3w...@midokura.com) wrote: > > I am part of the ServiceVM team and I will attend the NFV IRC > meetings. > > Great, thank you Stephen. > > cheers, > -chris > > ___ > 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
* Stephen Wong (s3w...@midokura.com) wrote: > I am part of the ServiceVM team and I will attend the NFV IRC meetings. Great, thank you Stephen. cheers, -chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Hi, I am part of the ServiceVM team and I will attend the NFV IRC meetings. Thanks, - Stephen On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Chris Wright wrote: > * balaj...@freescale.com (balaj...@freescale.com) wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mest...@noironetworks.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:19 AM > > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Ian Wells > > > wrote: > > > > I think the Service VM discussion resolved itself in a way that > > > > reduces the problem to a form of NFV - there are standing issues > using > > > > VMs for services, orchestration is probably not a responsibility that > > > > lies in Neutron, and as such the importance is in identifying the > > > > problems with the plumbing features of Neutron that cause > > > > implementation difficulties. The end result will be that VMs > > > > implementing tenant services and implementing NFV should be much the > > > > same, with the addition of offering a multitenant interface to > > > Openstack users on the tenant service VM case. > > > > > > > > Geoff Arnold is dealing with the collating of information from people > > > > that have made the attempt to implement service VMs. The problem > > > > areas should fall out of his effort. I also suspect that the key > > > > points of NFV that cause problems (for instance, dealing with VLANs > > > > and trunking) will actually appear quite high up the service VM list > as > > > well. > > > > -- > > > There is a weekly meeting for the Service VM project [1], I hope some > > > representatives from the NFB sub-project can make it to this meeting > and > > > participate there. > > [P Balaji-B37839] I agree with Kyle, so that we will have enough synch > between Service VM and NFV goals. > > Makes good sense. Will make sure to get someone there. > > thanks, > -chris > > ___ > 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
* balaj...@freescale.com (balaj...@freescale.com) wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mest...@noironetworks.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:19 AM > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Ian Wells > > wrote: > > > I think the Service VM discussion resolved itself in a way that > > > reduces the problem to a form of NFV - there are standing issues using > > > VMs for services, orchestration is probably not a responsibility that > > > lies in Neutron, and as such the importance is in identifying the > > > problems with the plumbing features of Neutron that cause > > > implementation difficulties. The end result will be that VMs > > > implementing tenant services and implementing NFV should be much the > > > same, with the addition of offering a multitenant interface to > > Openstack users on the tenant service VM case. > > > > > > Geoff Arnold is dealing with the collating of information from people > > > that have made the attempt to implement service VMs. The problem > > > areas should fall out of his effort. I also suspect that the key > > > points of NFV that cause problems (for instance, dealing with VLANs > > > and trunking) will actually appear quite high up the service VM list as > > well. > > > -- > > There is a weekly meeting for the Service VM project [1], I hope some > > representatives from the NFB sub-project can make it to this meeting and > > participate there. > [P Balaji-B37839] I agree with Kyle, so that we will have enough synch > between Service VM and NFV goals. Makes good sense. Will make sure to get someone there. thanks, -chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
> -Original Message- > From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mest...@noironetworks.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:19 AM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Ian Wells > wrote: > > I think the Service VM discussion resolved itself in a way that > > reduces the problem to a form of NFV - there are standing issues using > > VMs for services, orchestration is probably not a responsibility that > > lies in Neutron, and as such the importance is in identifying the > > problems with the plumbing features of Neutron that cause > > implementation difficulties. The end result will be that VMs > > implementing tenant services and implementing NFV should be much the > > same, with the addition of offering a multitenant interface to > Openstack users on the tenant service VM case. > > > > Geoff Arnold is dealing with the collating of information from people > > that have made the attempt to implement service VMs. The problem > > areas should fall out of his effort. I also suspect that the key > > points of NFV that cause problems (for instance, dealing with VLANs > > and trunking) will actually appear quite high up the service VM list as > well. > > -- > There is a weekly meeting for the Service VM project [1], I hope some > representatives from the NFB sub-project can make it to this meeting and > participate there. [P Balaji-B37839] I agree with Kyle, so that we will have enough synch between Service VM and NFV goals. Regards, Balaji.P > > Thanks, > Kyle > > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ServiceVM > > > Ian. > > > > > > > > On 18 May 2014 20:01, Steve Gordon wrote: > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> > From: "Sumit Naiksatam" > >> > > >> > Thanks for initiating this conversation. Unfortunately I was not > >> > able to participate during the summit on account of overlapping > sessions. > >> > As has been identified in the wiki and etherpad, there seem to be > >> > obvious/potential touch points with the advanced services' > >> > discussion we are having in Neutron [1]. Our sub team, and I, will > >> > track and participate in this NFV discussion. Needless to say, we > >> > are definitely very keen to understand and accommodate the NFV > requirements. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > ~Sumit. > >> > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices > >> > >> Yes, there are definitely touch points across a number of different > >> existing projects and sub teams. The consensus seemed to be that > >> while a lot of people in the community have been working in > >> independent groups on advancing the support for NFV use cases in > >> OpenStack we haven't necessarily been coordinating our efforts > >> effectively. Hopefully having a cross-project sub team will allow us > to do this. > >> > >> In the BoF sessions we started adding relevant *existing* blueprints > >> on the wiki page, we probably need to come up with a more robust way > >> to track these from launchpad :). Further proposals will no doubt > >> need to be built out from use cases as we discuss them further: > >> > >> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/NFV > >> > >> Feel free to add any blueprints from the Advanced Services efforts > >> that were missed! > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Steve > >> > >> ___ > >> 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Ian Wells wrote: > I think the Service VM discussion resolved itself in a way that reduces the > problem to a form of NFV - there are standing issues using VMs for services, > orchestration is probably not a responsibility that lies in Neutron, and as > such the importance is in identifying the problems with the plumbing > features of Neutron that cause implementation difficulties. The end result > will be that VMs implementing tenant services and implementing NFV should be > much the same, with the addition of offering a multitenant interface to > Openstack users on the tenant service VM case. > > Geoff Arnold is dealing with the collating of information from people that > have made the attempt to implement service VMs. The problem areas should > fall out of his effort. I also suspect that the key points of NFV that > cause problems (for instance, dealing with VLANs and trunking) will actually > appear quite high up the service VM list as well. > -- There is a weekly meeting for the Service VM project [1], I hope some representatives from the NFB sub-project can make it to this meeting and participate there. Thanks, Kyle [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ServiceVM > Ian. > > > > On 18 May 2014 20:01, Steve Gordon wrote: >> >> - Original Message - >> > From: "Sumit Naiksatam" >> > >> > Thanks for initiating this conversation. Unfortunately I was not able >> > to participate during the summit on account of overlapping sessions. >> > As has been identified in the wiki and etherpad, there seem to be >> > obvious/potential touch points with the advanced services' discussion >> > we are having in Neutron [1]. Our sub team, and I, will track and >> > participate in this NFV discussion. Needless to say, we are definitely >> > very keen to understand and accommodate the NFV requirements. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > ~Sumit. >> > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices >> >> Yes, there are definitely touch points across a number of different >> existing projects and sub teams. The consensus seemed to be that while a lot >> of people in the community have been working in independent groups on >> advancing the support for NFV use cases in OpenStack we haven't necessarily >> been coordinating our efforts effectively. Hopefully having a cross-project >> sub team will allow us to do this. >> >> In the BoF sessions we started adding relevant *existing* blueprints on >> the wiki page, we probably need to come up with a more robust way to track >> these from launchpad :). Further proposals will no doubt need to be built >> out from use cases as we discuss them further: >> >> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/NFV >> >> Feel free to add any blueprints from the Advanced Services efforts that >> were missed! >> >> Thanks, >> >> Steve >> >> ___ >> 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
I think the Service VM discussion resolved itself in a way that reduces the problem to a form of NFV - there are standing issues using VMs for services, orchestration is probably not a responsibility that lies in Neutron, and as such the importance is in identifying the problems with the plumbing features of Neutron that cause implementation difficulties. The end result will be that VMs implementing tenant services and implementing NFV should be much the same, with the addition of offering a multitenant interface to Openstack users on the tenant service VM case. Geoff Arnold is dealing with the collating of information from people that have made the attempt to implement service VMs. The problem areas should fall out of his effort. I also suspect that the key points of NFV that cause problems (for instance, dealing with VLANs and trunking) will actually appear quite high up the service VM list as well. -- Ian. On 18 May 2014 20:01, Steve Gordon wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "Sumit Naiksatam" > > > > Thanks for initiating this conversation. Unfortunately I was not able > > to participate during the summit on account of overlapping sessions. > > As has been identified in the wiki and etherpad, there seem to be > > obvious/potential touch points with the advanced services' discussion > > we are having in Neutron [1]. Our sub team, and I, will track and > > participate in this NFV discussion. Needless to say, we are definitely > > very keen to understand and accommodate the NFV requirements. > > > > Thanks, > > ~Sumit. > > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices > > Yes, there are definitely touch points across a number of different > existing projects and sub teams. The consensus seemed to be that while a > lot of people in the community have been working in independent groups on > advancing the support for NFV use cases in OpenStack we haven't necessarily > been coordinating our efforts effectively. Hopefully having a cross-project > sub team will allow us to do this. > > In the BoF sessions we started adding relevant *existing* blueprints on > the wiki page, we probably need to come up with a more robust way to track > these from launchpad :). Further proposals will no doubt need to be built > out from use cases as we discuss them further: > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/NFV > > Feel free to add any blueprints from the Advanced Services efforts that > were missed! > > Thanks, > > Steve > > ___ > 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
- Original Message - > From: "Sumit Naiksatam" > > Thanks for initiating this conversation. Unfortunately I was not able > to participate during the summit on account of overlapping sessions. > As has been identified in the wiki and etherpad, there seem to be > obvious/potential touch points with the advanced services' discussion > we are having in Neutron [1]. Our sub team, and I, will track and > participate in this NFV discussion. Needless to say, we are definitely > very keen to understand and accommodate the NFV requirements. > > Thanks, > ~Sumit. > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices Yes, there are definitely touch points across a number of different existing projects and sub teams. The consensus seemed to be that while a lot of people in the community have been working in independent groups on advancing the support for NFV use cases in OpenStack we haven't necessarily been coordinating our efforts effectively. Hopefully having a cross-project sub team will allow us to do this. In the BoF sessions we started adding relevant *existing* blueprints on the wiki page, we probably need to come up with a more robust way to track these from launchpad :). Further proposals will no doubt need to be built out from use cases as we discuss them further: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/NFV Feel free to add any blueprints from the Advanced Services efforts that were missed! Thanks, Steve ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Thanks for initiating this conversation. Unfortunately I was not able to participate during the summit on account of overlapping sessions. As has been identified in the wiki and etherpad, there seem to be obvious/potential touch points with the advanced services' discussion we are having in Neutron [1]. Our sub team, and I, will track and participate in this NFV discussion. Needless to say, we are definitely very keen to understand and accommodate the NFV requirements. Thanks, ~Sumit. [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Chris Wright wrote: > * Stephen Wong (s3w...@midokura.com) wrote: >> Hi Chris, >> >> Lunch time is 12:30pm (or couple minutes after that such that folks can >> grab lunch?)? > > Actually shows 12:20-1:20pm on agenda. We can start at 12:30 if you > think 10min is sufficient to grab a snack on the go. Sorry, it's the > downside of lunch meeting w/out lunch service to pods ;/ > > So 12:30... > > And here is the etherpad from today's starting point: > > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-nfv-bof > > And of course, the wiki that Russell pointed to ealier: > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/NFV > > thanks, > -chris > > ___ > 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
* Stephen Wong (s3w...@midokura.com) wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Lunch time is 12:30pm (or couple minutes after that such that folks can > grab lunch?)? Actually shows 12:20-1:20pm on agenda. We can start at 12:30 if you think 10min is sufficient to grab a snack on the go. Sorry, it's the downside of lunch meeting w/out lunch service to pods ;/ So 12:30... And here is the etherpad from today's starting point: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-nfv-bof And of course, the wiki that Russell pointed to ealier: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/NFV thanks, -chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Hi Steve, Agreed. I believe Chris already suggested this meeting will reconvene tomorrow (Friday) at lunchtime - and a number of folks already stated that they will come. Thanks, - Stephen On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Steve Gordon wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "IWAMOTO Toshihiro" > > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < > openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 5:53:23 PM > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > > > At Wed, 14 May 2014 14:40:03 -0700, > > punal patel wrote: > > > > > > [1 ] > > > [1.1 ] > > > Will this be recorded? or can I join webex? > > > > > > > There's no official recording facility. You may be able to ask > > someone to record or stream. > > BTW, I think it is a good idea to try to take discussion memo on > > etherpad, just as official design summit programs. > > I arrived slightly late, but an etherpad was used to record some notes: > > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-nfv-bof > > Still hoping to reconvene at lunch tomorrow with the addition of those who > couldn't make it. > > Steve > > ___ > 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
- Original Message - > From: "IWAMOTO Toshihiro" > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 5:53:23 PM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > At Wed, 14 May 2014 14:40:03 -0700, > punal patel wrote: > > > > [1 ] > > [1.1 ] > > Will this be recorded? or can I join webex? > > > > There's no official recording facility. You may be able to ask > someone to record or stream. > BTW, I think it is a good idea to try to take discussion memo on > etherpad, just as official design summit programs. I arrived slightly late, but an etherpad was used to record some notes: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-nfv-bof Still hoping to reconvene at lunch tomorrow with the addition of those who couldn't make it. Steve ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Hi Chris, Lunch time is 12:30pm (or couple minutes after that such that folks can grab lunch?)? Thanks, - Stephen On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Chris Wright wrote: > * Fawad Khaliq (fa...@plumgrid.com) wrote: > > +1 at lunch tomorrow > > On May 15, 2014 12:31 PM, "Hoban, Adrian" > wrote: > > > > > +1 for lunch tomorrow > > OK. Let's do lunch tomorow, as Stephen suggested, in the Neutron Pod. > > I still plan to come today at 1:30pm, and will relay any discussion today > to tomorrow's group for those that are leaving and can't come tomorrow. > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Chris Wright [mailto:chr...@sous-sol.org] > > > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 11:06 AM > > > To: Steve Gordon; CARVER, PAUL; Stephen Wong; Alan Kavanagh > > > Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); > > > iawe...@cisco.com > > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > > > > > * Stephen Wong (s3w...@midokura.com) wrote: > > > > A good number of people involved in Neutron advanced service / > > > > group-policy / individual services subteams will be at the Group > > > > Policy conference session (at 1:30pm). Is it possible to reschedule > > > > this to a different time? > > > > > > Urgh, we were looking at design summit sessions only. > > > > > > * Steve Gordon (sgor...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > > From: "Alan Kavanagh" > > > > > +1 can we reschedule to push this forward Chris please? > > > > > > > > > There are a number of other NFV-related sessions later in the day > today > > > as well (both on the general and design tracks), perhaps the best > option > > > would be to meet during the lunch break tomorrow instead, will enough > > > interested people still be around? > > > > > > Neutron pod has 2:30 session on QoS that Sean Collins is leading. > > > 5:00 on VLANs and gateways, (and there's a 4:10 session on SR-IOV > that's > > > related as well). > > > > > > I think it's hard to move this one. But happy to find a time to meet > > > again tomorrow w/ folks that couldn't make 1:30. > > > > > > Lunch break works for me, what about others? > > > > > > thanks, > > > -chris > > > > > > ___ > > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > -- > > > Intel Shannon Limited > > > Registered in Ireland > > > Registered Office: Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare > > > Registered Number: 308263 > > > Business address: Dromore House, East Park, Shannon, Co. Clare > > > > > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the > > > sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by > others > > > is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please > > > contact the sender and delete all copies. > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
* Fawad Khaliq (fa...@plumgrid.com) wrote: > +1 at lunch tomorrow > On May 15, 2014 12:31 PM, "Hoban, Adrian" wrote: > > > +1 for lunch tomorrow OK. Let's do lunch tomorow, as Stephen suggested, in the Neutron Pod. I still plan to come today at 1:30pm, and will relay any discussion today to tomorrow's group for those that are leaving and can't come tomorrow. > > -Original Message- > > From: Chris Wright [mailto:chr...@sous-sol.org] > > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 11:06 AM > > To: Steve Gordon; CARVER, PAUL; Stephen Wong; Alan Kavanagh > > Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); > > iawe...@cisco.com > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > > > * Stephen Wong (s3w...@midokura.com) wrote: > > > A good number of people involved in Neutron advanced service / > > > group-policy / individual services subteams will be at the Group > > > Policy conference session (at 1:30pm). Is it possible to reschedule > > > this to a different time? > > > > Urgh, we were looking at design summit sessions only. > > > > * Steve Gordon (sgor...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > From: "Alan Kavanagh" > > > > +1 can we reschedule to push this forward Chris please? > > > > > > > There are a number of other NFV-related sessions later in the day today > > as well (both on the general and design tracks), perhaps the best option > > would be to meet during the lunch break tomorrow instead, will enough > > interested people still be around? > > > > Neutron pod has 2:30 session on QoS that Sean Collins is leading. > > 5:00 on VLANs and gateways, (and there's a 4:10 session on SR-IOV that's > > related as well). > > > > I think it's hard to move this one. But happy to find a time to meet > > again tomorrow w/ folks that couldn't make 1:30. > > > > Lunch break works for me, what about others? > > > > thanks, > > -chris > > > > ___ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- > > Intel Shannon Limited > > Registered in Ireland > > Registered Office: Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare > > Registered Number: 308263 > > Business address: Dromore House, East Park, Shannon, Co. Clare > > > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the > > sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others > > is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please > > contact the sender and delete all copies. > > > > > > > > ___ > > 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
+1 at lunch tomorrow On May 15, 2014 12:31 PM, "Hoban, Adrian" wrote: > +1 for lunch tomorrow > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Wright [mailto:chr...@sous-sol.org] > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 11:06 AM > To: Steve Gordon; CARVER, PAUL; Stephen Wong; Alan Kavanagh > Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); > iawe...@cisco.com > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > * Stephen Wong (s3w...@midokura.com) wrote: > > A good number of people involved in Neutron advanced service / > > group-policy / individual services subteams will be at the Group > > Policy conference session (at 1:30pm). Is it possible to reschedule > > this to a different time? > > Urgh, we were looking at design summit sessions only. > > * Steve Gordon (sgor...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > From: "Alan Kavanagh" > > > +1 can we reschedule to push this forward Chris please? > > > > > There are a number of other NFV-related sessions later in the day today > as well (both on the general and design tracks), perhaps the best option > would be to meet during the lunch break tomorrow instead, will enough > interested people still be around? > > Neutron pod has 2:30 session on QoS that Sean Collins is leading. > 5:00 on VLANs and gateways, (and there's a 4:10 session on SR-IOV that's > related as well). > > I think it's hard to move this one. But happy to find a time to meet > again tomorrow w/ folks that couldn't make 1:30. > > Lunch break works for me, what about others? > > thanks, > -chris > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- > Intel Shannon Limited > Registered in Ireland > Registered Office: Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare > Registered Number: 308263 > Business address: Dromore House, East Park, Shannon, Co. Clare > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the > sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others > is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please > contact the sender and delete all copies. > > > > ___ > 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
+1 for lunch tomorrow -Original Message- From: Chris Wright [mailto:chr...@sous-sol.org] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 11:06 AM To: Steve Gordon; CARVER, PAUL; Stephen Wong; Alan Kavanagh Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); iawe...@cisco.com Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit * Stephen Wong (s3w...@midokura.com) wrote: > A good number of people involved in Neutron advanced service / > group-policy / individual services subteams will be at the Group > Policy conference session (at 1:30pm). Is it possible to reschedule > this to a different time? Urgh, we were looking at design summit sessions only. * Steve Gordon (sgor...@redhat.com) wrote: > > From: "Alan Kavanagh" > > +1 can we reschedule to push this forward Chris please? > > > There are a number of other NFV-related sessions later in the day today as > well (both on the general and design tracks), perhaps the best option would > be to meet during the lunch break tomorrow instead, will enough interested > people still be around? Neutron pod has 2:30 session on QoS that Sean Collins is leading. 5:00 on VLANs and gateways, (and there's a 4:10 session on SR-IOV that's related as well). I think it's hard to move this one. But happy to find a time to meet again tomorrow w/ folks that couldn't make 1:30. Lunch break works for me, what about others? thanks, -chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Intel Shannon Limited Registered in Ireland Registered Office: Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare Registered Number: 308263 Business address: Dromore House, East Park, Shannon, Co. Clare This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
* Stephen Wong (s3w...@midokura.com) wrote: > A good number of people involved in Neutron advanced service / > group-policy / individual services subteams will be at the Group > Policy > conference session (at 1:30pm). Is it possible to reschedule this to a > different time? Urgh, we were looking at design summit sessions only. * Steve Gordon (sgor...@redhat.com) wrote: > > From: "Alan Kavanagh" > > +1 can we reschedule to push this forward Chris please? > > > There are a number of other NFV-related sessions later in the day today as > well (both on the general and design tracks), perhaps the best option would > be to meet during the lunch break tomorrow instead, will enough interested > people still be around? Neutron pod has 2:30 session on QoS that Sean Collins is leading. 5:00 on VLANs and gateways, (and there's a 4:10 session on SR-IOV that's related as well). I think it's hard to move this one. But happy to find a time to meet again tomorrow w/ folks that couldn't make 1:30. Lunch break works for me, what about others? thanks, -chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
+1 for lunch break tomorrow (Friday) - we can still meet at the Neutron pod On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Steve Gordon wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "Alan Kavanagh" > > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < > openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > > Cc: iawe...@cisco.com > > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 10:02:49 AM > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > > > +1 can we reschedule to push this forward Chris please? > > > > Alan > > There are a number of other NFV-related sessions later in the day today as > well (both on the general and design tracks), perhaps the best option would > be to meet during the lunch break tomorrow instead, will enough interested > people still be around? > > Thanks, > > Steve > > ___ > 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
- Original Message - > From: "Alan Kavanagh" > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > Cc: iawe...@cisco.com > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 10:02:49 AM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit > > +1 can we reschedule to push this forward Chris please? > > Alan There are a number of other NFV-related sessions later in the day today as well (both on the general and design tracks), perhaps the best option would be to meet during the lunch break tomorrow instead, will enough interested people still be around? Thanks, Steve ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
+1 can we reschedule to push this forward Chris please? Alan From: Stephen Wong [mailto:s3w...@midokura.com] Sent: May-15-14 10:01 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Cc: iawe...@cisco.com Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit Hi Chris, A good number of people involved in Neutron advanced service / group-policy / individual services subteams will be at the Group Policy conference session (at 1:30pm). Is it possible to reschedule this to a different time? Thanks, - Stephen On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Chris Wright mailto:chr...@redhat.com>> wrote: Thursday at 1:30 PM in the Neutron Pod we'll do an NFV BoF. If you are at design summit and interested in Neutron + NFV please come join us. thanks, -chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto: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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Hi Chris, A good number of people involved in Neutron advanced service / group-policy / individual services subteams will be at the Group Policy conference session (at 1:30pm). Is it possible to reschedule this to a different time? Thanks, - Stephen On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Chris Wright wrote: > Thursday at 1:30 PM in the Neutron Pod we'll do > an NFV BoF. If you are at design summit and > interested in Neutron + NFV please come join us. > > thanks, > -chris > > ___ > 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
On 05/14/2014 05:53 PM, IWAMOTO Toshihiro wrote: > At Wed, 14 May 2014 14:40:03 -0700, > punal patel wrote: >> >> [1 ] >> [1.1 ] >> Will this be recorded? or can I join webex? >> > > There's no official recording facility. You may be able to ask > someone to record or stream. > BTW, I think it is a good idea to try to take discussion memo on > etherpad, just as official design summit programs. I would also like to see some regular discussion and coordination after the summit on these things. See this message for more: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-May/035068.html -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
I'm planning to go to the neutron policy session at 1:30 but I'd like to find a chance to meet you and say hi. I'll be at the summit through Friday. Original message From: Luke Gorrie Date: To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" Cc: "Ian Wells (iawells)" Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit Can't wait :-). On 14 May 2014 19:06, Chris Wright wrote: > Thursday at 1:30 PM in the Neutron Pod we'll do > an NFV BoF. If you are at design summit and > interested in Neutron + NFV please come join us. > > thanks, > -chris > > ___ > 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Can't wait :-). On 14 May 2014 19:06, Chris Wright wrote: > Thursday at 1:30 PM in the Neutron Pod we'll do > an NFV BoF. If you are at design summit and > interested in Neutron + NFV please come join us. > > thanks, > -chris > > ___ > 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
At Wed, 14 May 2014 14:40:03 -0700, punal patel wrote: > > [1 ] > [1.1 ] > Will this be recorded? or can I join webex? > There's no official recording facility. You may be able to ask someone to record or stream. BTW, I think it is a good idea to try to take discussion memo on etherpad, just as official design summit programs. > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Chris Wright wrote: > > > Thursday at 1:30 PM in the Neutron Pod we'll do > > an NFV BoF. If you are at design summit and > > interested in Neutron + NFV please come join us. > > > > thanks, > > -chris > > > > ___ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > [1.2 ] > > [2 ] > ___ > 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] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
Will this be recorded? or can I join webex? Thank You, Punal Patel On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Chris Wright wrote: > Thursday at 1:30 PM in the Neutron Pod we'll do > an NFV BoF. If you are at design summit and > interested in Neutron + NFV please come join us. > > thanks, > -chris > > ___ > 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
