Hi Paul, Don't need to worry, you are perfectly right, GBP API is not replacing anything :).
Also thanks for sharing your opinion on this matter. Thanks, Ivar. On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 5:46 PM, CARVER, PAUL <pc2...@att.com> wrote: > Wuhongning [mailto:wuhongn...@huawei.com] wrote: > > >Does it make sense to move all advanced extension out of ML2, like > security > >group, qos...? Then we can just talk about advanced service itself, > without > >bothering basic neutron object (network/subnet/port) > > A modular layer 3 (ML3) analogous to ML2 sounds like a good idea. I still > think it's too late in the game to be shooting down all the work that the > GBP team has put in unless there's a really clean and effective way of > running AND iterating on GBP in conjunction with Neutron without being > part of the Juno release. As far as I can tell they've worked really > hard to follow the process and accommodate input. They shouldn't have > to wait multiple more releases on a hypothetical refactoring of how L3+ vs > L2 is structured. > > But, just so I'm not making a horrible mistake, can someone reassure me > that GBP isn't removing the constructs of network/subnet/port from Neutron? > > I'm under the impression that GBP is adding a higher level abstraction > but that it's not ripping basic constructs like network/subnet/port out > of the existing API. If I'm wrong about that I'll have to change my > opinion. We need those fundamental networking constructs to be present > and accessible to users that want/need to deal with them. I'm viewing > GBP as just a higher level abstraction over the top. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
