Hello Tomoe, How are things going with the Midonet integration? If you need any help with this I'd be happy to share my experiences while implementing the support for Nicira NVP. It would be nice to have this more or less done in the same way, so it will be easy for users to implement either one of them.
Cheers, Hugo -----Original Message----- From: to...@midokura.jp [mailto:to...@midokura.jp] On Behalf Of Tomoe Sugihara Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 5:34 PM To: Murali Reddy Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Review Request: Add Provider and NetworkDevice for Midokura MidoNet On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Tomoe Sugihara <to...@midokura.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Murali Reddy <murali.re...@citrix.com> wrote: >> On 08/08/12 1:16 PM, "Tomoe Sugihara" <to...@midokura.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>----------------------------------------------------------- >>>This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: >>>https://reviews.apache.org/r/6464/ >>>----------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>>Review request for cloudstack. >>> >>> >>>Description >>>------- >>> >>>We are working on integrating our SDN technology with CloudStack and >>>found that we need to register these inside the code. >>>We haven't finished implementation, but it'd be great if this'd be >>>accepted in advance in time for 4.0 so we can do integration work >>>against >>>4.0 later. We'd be happy to provide our integration code once it's done. >> >> Fix looks good. But just wondering why would you want just introduce >> a new provider which is not functional? If I may suggest, at least >> get in the skeleton of the implementation of files that is required. >> I would be happy to help with that or you can refer to the Nicira NVP >> integration to get an idea of what needs to be changed. > > Thanks for your help. I really appreciate it. > We just started our work and given the time frame (I believe code > freeze is at the end of this week), I don't think we can finish our > integration. But at least, we'd like to be integration ready with CS > 4.0. > If this change is in, I believe we can take some time to implement our > network element and guru. Hi Murali, I'll update the diff on CR to include skeletons as you suggested. Thanks, Tomoe > >> >>> >>>Let me know if there's any processes or criteria to follow when it >>>comes to pushing this kind of vendor specific code. >> >> I guess there is no process/criteria to follow to push vendor >> specific code. Just extend the integration points (NetworkElement, >> Network Guru, Provider etc) you will have to in order to support >> Midokura SDN and keep the implementation contained as >> PluggableService so that there is choice to turn on/off the Midokura SDN >> controller support. >> >>> >>>Also, not an urgent thing, but it'd be handier if we could specify >>>these information in configuration files in the future. >> >> Agree. List of Network service provider should be configubrable >> through component locator. > > That'd be great:) > > Thanks, > Tomoe > >> >>> >>>==================== >>>Add Provider and NetworkDevice for Midokura MidoNet >>> >>>Signed-off-by: Tomoe Sugihara <to...@midokura.com> >>>==================== >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Tomoe >>> >>> >>>Diffs >>>----- >>> >>> api/src/com/cloud/network/Network.java >>>459b05bc6abe61765974804e43fc4dbae819e20f >>> server/src/com/cloud/network/ExternalNetworkDeviceManager.java >>>dec0608c8df8193781c057ae32f71c4a504d41d1 >>> >>>Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/6464/diff/ >>> >>> >>>Testing >>>------- >>> >>>ant clean-all build-all >>> >>> >>>Thanks, >>> >>>Tomoe Sugihara >>> >>> >> >>
