I agree with all your points here Dan. Lets not take any sort of upgrade hit now, given the constraints on the V1 API you point out below. Going forward post V2, upgrades will need to be taken into account.
On Jun 29, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Dan Wendlandt wrote: > Hi Gary, > > Based on discussions during the last team meeting, I had created a BP to > discuss this in F-3 > (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/remove-v1-related-code), > though admittedly the work on the OVS + LB plugins in F-2 certainly also > raises the question. > > My bias is toward removing v1 support prior to the end of Folsom. My > motivation for this is to reduce the total amount of code under management, > as well as to avoid having to document and support two very different models > of using Quantum (since v1 did not include IPAM, it required networks to be > created using nova-manage with nova-network as a proxy, and use nova-network > for L3/NAT + DHCP). > > The reasons I think we can get away with dropping v1 support is that v2 is a > super-set of the functionality, and because (due to the use of nova as a > proxy), v1 never really was exposed directly to users. V1 was more of an > internal API between Nova and Quantum, and since we can update not to use v2, > I can't think of a case where dropping v1 support really leaves someone in > the lurch. > > For the F-2 work on the OVS plugin, I encouraged Aaron to retain the v1 code > for the time being. The reason for this is that until we have solid DHCP > (targeted for F-2) and L3 + NAT (targeted for F-3) support in Quantum itself, > there are some use cases that cannot be done with v2 (in particular, we could > run and pass the standard gating tests, which test things like floating IPs). > > > I believe there are already plans to update both the NVP, UCS, and (based on > the other email thread Ryu as well) in F-3. > > Thoughts? > > Dan > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Gary Kotton <gkot...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi, > With the advent of V2 do we want to continue to support V1? > - Yes: > - Do we want separate plugins or as Bob suggested have the V2 plugin > support V1 requests? V2 support for V1 may require changes in the database. > In addition to this we do not have a database upgrade. > - No: > - Should the current patches remove the V1 support. > - What about UCS and RYU? > My concerns are if someone adopts a Quantum implementation with V1 support, > how will they move to V2 without service disruption. > Thanks > Gary > > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack > Post to : netstack@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Dan Wendlandt > Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com > twitter: danwendlandt > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack > Post to : netstack@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack Post to : netstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
