Hi Folks,
I have postponed this meeting to the week of February 10th on Thursday Feb
13th, so that there is enough time for people to plan to attend this meeting.
Meeting details will be discussed in the neutron meeting and will send out the
details.
Thanks
Swami
From: Vasudevan, Swaminathan
Hi Swaminathan,
I assume you will be posting the time, location, and the dial-in details of
this meeting, once it is finalized, right?
-Sukhdev
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Vasudevan, Swaminathan (PNB Roseville) <
swaminathan.vasude...@hp.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I would like to invit
to:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: måndag 23 december 2013 19:17
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Neutron Distributed Virtual Router
Regarding using 'provider'
Regarding using 'provider' in L3 router, for the BP 'L3 service integration
with service framework', I've submitted some code for review, which is
using 'provider' in a same notion as other advanced services. I am not sure
if it can be reused to describe 'centralized' and 'distributed' behavior.
h
NSX distributed routers behave, from a tenant perspective, exactly like any
other router.
Beyond the service level factor, which I believe Ian is referring to as
well, there is no reason for distinguishing them from standard routers
through the API.
I believe the same applies distributed router b
Are these NSX routers *functionally* different?
What we're talking about here is a router which, whether it's distributed
or not, behaves *exactly the same*. So as I say, maybe it's an SLA thing,
but 'distributed' isn't really user meaningful if the user can't actually
prove he's received a distr
I generally tend to agree that once the distributed router is available,
nobody would probably want to use a centralized one.
Nevertheless, I think it is correct that, at least for the moment, some
advanced services would only work with a centralized router.
There might also be unforeseen scalabili
Hi Nachi/Akihiro motoki,
I am not clear.
Today the L3 Service Plugin does not support the "service_type" attribute to
define the provider option.
Are we suggesting that we need to include the service_type for the L3 Service
Plugin and then we can make use of the "service_type" attribute to d
I'm +1 for 'provider'.
2013/12/9 Akihiro Motoki :
> Neutron defines "provider" attribute and it is/will be used in advanced
> services (LB, FW, VPN).
> Doesn't it fit for a distributed router case? If we can cover all services
> with one concept, it would be nice.
>
> According to this thread, w
NSX makes firewall distributed also. So besides VPN, before neutron
implements FW also in a distributed fashion, it might be another reason
that people need existing router. Discussion about advanced services and
dvr is recorded here:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Distributed-Virtual-Router
Bes
Neutron defines "provider" attribute and it is/will be used in advanced
services (LB, FW, VPN).
Doesn't it fit for a distributed router case? If we can cover all services with
one concept, it would be nice.
According to this thread, we assumes at least two types "edge" and
"distributed".
Though
Hi Yong
NSX have two kind of router.
Edge and distributed router.
Edge node will work as some VPN services and advanced service nodes.
Actually, VPNaaS OSS impl is running in l3-agent.
so IMO, we need l3-agent also for basis of some edge services.
2013/12/9 Yongsheng Gong :
> If distributed
If distributed router is good enough, why do we still need non-distributed
router?
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Ian Wells wrote:
> I would imagine that, from the Neutron perspective, you get a single
> router whether or not it's distributed. I think that if a router is
> distributed - rega
I would imagine that, from the Neutron perspective, you get a single router
whether or not it's distributed. I think that if a router is distributed -
regardless of whether it's tenant-tenant or tenant-outside - it certainly
*could* have some sort of SLA flag, but I don't think a simple
'distribut
I guess the question that immediately comes to mind is, is there anyone
that doesn't want a distributed router? I guess there could be someone out
there that hates the idea of traffic flowing in a balanced fashion, but
can't they just run a single router then? Does there really need to be some
flag
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Distributed Virtual Router Discussion
Hi Folks,
Thanks for your interests in the DVR feature.
We should get together to start discussing the details in the DVR.
Please let me know who else is interested, probably the time slot and we can
start nailing down the
han (PNB Roseville)
> [mailto:swaminathan.vasude...@hp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 2:50 PM
> To: cloudbengo; Artem Dmytrenko; yong sheng gong (gong...@unitedstack.com);
> OpenStack Development Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Distributed Virtual Router Di
);
OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Distributed Virtual Router Discussion
Hi Folks,
Thanks for your interests in the DVR feature.
We should get together to start discussing the details in the DVR.
Please let me know who else is interested, probably the time
; Swami
>
>
>
> From: Robin Wang [mailto:cloudbe...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:45 AM
> To: Artem Dmytrenko; yong sheng gong (gong...@unitedstack.com); OpenStack
> Development Mailing List; Vasudevan, Swaminathan (PNB Roseville)
> Subject: Re: Re: [openstack
t: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:45 AM
> > To: Artem Dmytrenko; yong sheng gong (gong...@unitedstack.com);
> OpenStack Development Mailing List; Vasudevan, Swaminathan (PNB Roseville)
> > Subject: Re: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Distributed Virtual Router
> Discussion
> >
&g
Router_for_OVS
> Thanks
> Swami
>
> From: Robin Wang [mailto:cloudbe...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:45 AM
> To: Artem Dmytrenko; yong sheng gong (gong...@unitedstack.com); OpenStack
> Development Mailing List; Vasudevan, Swaminathan (PNB Roseville)
> Subject
)
Subject: Re: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Distributed Virtual Router Discussion
Hi Artem,
Very happy to see more stackers working on this feature. : )
"Note that the images in your document are badly corrupted - maybe my questions
could already be answered by your diagrams. "
I me
Hi Artem,
Very happy to see more stackers working on this feature. : )
"Note that the images in your document are badly corrupted - maybe my questions
could already be answered by your diagrams. "
I met the same issue at first. Downloading the doc and open it locally may
help. It works for me.
23 matches
Mail list logo
