Re: [openstack-dev] 答复: Re: [neutron][AdvancedServices] Confusion about the solution of the service chaining!
Hi Alan, We are now in the process of doing It :) Thanks Vikram From: lv.erc...@zte.com.cn [mailto:lv.erc...@zte.com.cn] Sent: 12 January 2015 12:57 To: Vikram Choudhary Cc: Dongfeng (C); Dhruv Dhody; Kalyankumar Asangi; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com Subject: 答复: RE: [openstack-dev] 答复: Re: [neutron][AdvancedServices] Confusion about the solution of the service chaining! Hi Virkram, Glad to hear that. Have you implemented that? BR Alan 发件人: Vikram Choudhary vikram.choudh...@huawei.commailto:vikram.choudh...@huawei.com 收件人: lv.erc...@zte.com.cnmailto:lv.erc...@zte.com.cn lv.erc...@zte.com.cnmailto:lv.erc...@zte.com.cn, 抄送:OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, sumitnaiksa...@gmail.commailto:sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com sumitnaiksa...@gmail.commailto:sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com, Dhruv Dhody dhruv.dh...@huawei.commailto:dhruv.dh...@huawei.com, Dongfeng (C) albert.dongf...@huawei.commailto:albert.dongf...@huawei.com, Kalyankumar Asangi kaly...@huawei.commailto:kaly...@huawei.com 日期: 2015/01/12 13:05 主题:RE: [openstack-dev] 答复: Re: [neutron][AdvancedServices] Confusion about the solution of the service chaining! Hi Alan, We have also proposed an idea about SFC. For more details you can refer to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/146315/ Thanks Vikram -Original Message- From: Sumit Naiksatam [mailto:sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com] Sent: 09 January 2015 01:39 To: lv.erc...@zte.com.cnmailto:lv.erc...@zte.com.cn Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] 答复: Re: [neutron][AdvancedServices] Confusion about the solution of the service chaining! Hi Alan, On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:54 PM, lv.erc...@zte.com.cnmailto:lv.erc...@zte.com.cn wrote: Hi Sumit, thanks for your reply, one more question, If I just using the 'group-based-policy-service-chaining' to developing the service chaining feuture, how to map the network service in the neutron to the GBP model, because all the network service we implemented are based on neutron model, but the 'group-based-policy-service-chaining' setup the service chaining based on GBP model, so how can we setup the service chaining for network services based the neutron model using the 'group-based-policy-service-chaining' ? The current model and implementation leverage the Neutron services as is (the model is actually agnostic of the service definition/implementation). Will be happy to further discuss this, feel free to ping on #openstack-gbp. Thanks, ~Sumit. BR Alan 发件人: Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.commailto:sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com 收件人: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, 日期: 2015/01/08 10:46 主题:Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][AdvancedServices] Confusion about the solution of the service chaining! Hi Alan, Responses inline... On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:25 AM, lv.erc...@zte.com.cnmailto:lv.erc...@zte.com.cn wrote: Hi, I want to confirm that how is the project about Neutron Services Insertion, Chaining, and Steering going, I found that all the code implementation about service insertion、service chaining and traffic steering list in JunoPlan were Abandoned . https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices/JunoPlan and I also found that we have a new project about GBP and group-based-policy-service-chaining be located at: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/group-based-policy/+spec/group-based -policy-abstraction https://blueprints.launchpad.net/group-based-policy/+spec/group-based -policy-service-chaining so I'm confused with solution of the service chaining. Yes, the above two blueprints have been implemented and are available for consumption today as a part of the Group-based Policy codebase and release. The GBP model uses a policy trigger to drive the service composition and can accommodate different rendering policies like realization using NFV SFC. We are developing the service chaining feature, so we need to know which one is the neutron's choice. It would be great if you can provide feedback on the current implementation, and perhaps participate and contribute as well. Are the blueprints about the service insertion, service chaining and traffic steering list in JunoPlan all Abandoned ? Some aspects of this are perhaps a good fit in Neutron and others are not. We are looking forward to continuing the discussion on this topic on the areas which are potentially a good fit for Neutron (we have had this discussion before as well). BR Alan ZTE Information Security Notice: The information
Re: [openstack-dev] 答复: Re: [neutron][AdvancedServices] Confusion about the solution of the service chaining!
Hi Alan, We have also proposed an idea about SFC. For more details you can refer to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/146315/ Thanks Vikram -Original Message- From: Sumit Naiksatam [mailto:sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com] Sent: 09 January 2015 01:39 To: lv.erc...@zte.com.cn Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] 答复: Re: [neutron][AdvancedServices] Confusion about the solution of the service chaining! Hi Alan, On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:54 PM, lv.erc...@zte.com.cn wrote: Hi Sumit, thanks for your reply, one more question, If I just using the 'group-based-policy-service-chaining' to developing the service chaining feuture, how to map the network service in the neutron to the GBP model, because all the network service we implemented are based on neutron model, but the 'group-based-policy-service-chaining' setup the service chaining based on GBP model, so how can we setup the service chaining for network services based the neutron model using the 'group-based-policy-service-chaining' ? The current model and implementation leverage the Neutron services as is (the model is actually agnostic of the service definition/implementation). Will be happy to further discuss this, feel free to ping on #openstack-gbp. Thanks, ~Sumit. BR Alan 发件人: Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com 收件人: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, 日期: 2015/01/08 10:46 主题:Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][AdvancedServices] Confusion about the solution of the service chaining! Hi Alan, Responses inline... On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:25 AM, lv.erc...@zte.com.cn wrote: Hi, I want to confirm that how is the project about Neutron Services Insertion, Chaining, and Steering going, I found that all the code implementation about service insertion、service chaining and traffic steering list in JunoPlan were Abandoned . https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices/JunoPlan and I also found that we have a new project about GBP and group-based-policy-service-chaining be located at: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/group-based-policy/+spec/group-based -policy-abstraction https://blueprints.launchpad.net/group-based-policy/+spec/group-based -policy-service-chaining so I'm confused with solution of the service chaining. Yes, the above two blueprints have been implemented and are available for consumption today as a part of the Group-based Policy codebase and release. The GBP model uses a policy trigger to drive the service composition and can accommodate different rendering policies like realization using NFV SFC. We are developing the service chaining feature, so we need to know which one is the neutron's choice. It would be great if you can provide feedback on the current implementation, and perhaps participate and contribute as well. Are the blueprints about the service insertion, service chaining and traffic steering list in JunoPlan all Abandoned ? Some aspects of this are perhaps a good fit in Neutron and others are not. We are looking forward to continuing the discussion on this topic on the areas which are potentially a good fit for Neutron (we have had this discussion before as well). BR Alan ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail (and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited. If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us immediately. ___ 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 ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail (and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited. If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us immediately. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] 答复: Re: [neutron][AdvancedServices] Confusion about the solution of the service chaining!
Hi Alan, On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:54 PM, lv.erc...@zte.com.cn wrote: Hi Sumit, thanks for your reply, one more question, If I just using the 'group-based-policy-service-chaining' to developing the service chaining feuture, how to map the network service in the neutron to the GBP model, because all the network service we implemented are based on neutron model, but the 'group-based-policy-service-chaining' setup the service chaining based on GBP model, so how can we setup the service chaining for network services based the neutron model using the 'group-based-policy-service-chaining' ? The current model and implementation leverage the Neutron services as is (the model is actually agnostic of the service definition/implementation). Will be happy to further discuss this, feel free to ping on #openstack-gbp. Thanks, ~Sumit. BR Alan 发件人: Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com 收件人: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, 日期: 2015/01/08 10:46 主题:Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][AdvancedServices] Confusion about the solution of the service chaining! Hi Alan, Responses inline... On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:25 AM, lv.erc...@zte.com.cn wrote: Hi, I want to confirm that how is the project about Neutron Services Insertion, Chaining, and Steering going, I found that all the code implementation about service insertion、service chaining and traffic steering list in JunoPlan were Abandoned . https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices/JunoPlan and I also found that we have a new project about GBP and group-based-policy-service-chaining be located at: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/group-based-policy/+spec/group-based-policy-abstraction https://blueprints.launchpad.net/group-based-policy/+spec/group-based-policy-service-chaining so I'm confused with solution of the service chaining. Yes, the above two blueprints have been implemented and are available for consumption today as a part of the Group-based Policy codebase and release. The GBP model uses a policy trigger to drive the service composition and can accommodate different rendering policies like realization using NFV SFC. We are developing the service chaining feature, so we need to know which one is the neutron's choice. It would be great if you can provide feedback on the current implementation, and perhaps participate and contribute as well. Are the blueprints about the service insertion, service chaining and traffic steering list in JunoPlan all Abandoned ? Some aspects of this are perhaps a good fit in Neutron and others are not. We are looking forward to continuing the discussion on this topic on the areas which are potentially a good fit for Neutron (we have had this discussion before as well). BR Alan ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail (and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited. If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us immediately. ___ 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 ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail (and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited. If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us immediately. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
