[Starlingx-discuss] Questions about VXLAN Provider Network feature for StarlingX upstreaming

Qin, Kailun kailun.qin at intel.com
Wed Aug 8 23:28:18 UTC 2018

Hi Ian,

Thanks a lot for your comments.

I agree with the deprecation. Let’s focus on the managed provider network extensions and track the work required to make this change within StarlingX via StoryBoard.


From: Jolliffe, Ian [mailto:Ian.Jolliffe at windriver.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 5:16 AM
To: Qin, Kailun <kailun.qin at intel.com>
Cc: Troyer, Dean <dean.troyer at intel.com>; Jones, Bruce E <bruce.e.jones at intel.com>; Chilcote Bacco, Derek A <derek.a.chilcote.bacco at intel.com>; Le, Huifeng <huifeng.le at intel.com>; Xu, Chenjie <chenjie.xu at intel.com>; Zhao, Forrest <forrest.zhao at intel.com>; Guo, Ruijing <ruijing.guo at intel.com>; Rowsell, Brent <Brent.Rowsell at windriver.com>; Peters, Matt <Matt.Peters at windriver.com>; Khalil, Ghada <Ghada.Khalil at windriver.com>
Subject: Re: Questions about VXLAN Provider Network feature for StarlingX upstreaming

HI Kailun;

I think we should deprecate this functionality and align with upstream.  We should remove the scoping of the VxLAN networks to physical networks and treat them as global.  This would reduce the amount of changes required to the ML2 type managers, and ease integration / adoption of the managed provider network extensions.  This item has a linkage to the provider network story or there is more work to do.  We need a corresponding StoryBoard in StarlingX to track the work required to make this change within StarlingX.



From: "Qin, Kailun" <kailun.qin at intel.com<mailto:kailun.qin at intel.com>>
Date: Monday, August 6, 2018 at 3:03 AM
To: Ian Jolliffe <Ian.Jolliffe at windriver.com<mailto:Ian.Jolliffe at windriver.com>>
Cc: "Troyer, Dean" <dean.troyer at intel.com<mailto:dean.troyer at intel.com>>, "Jones, Bruce E" <bruce.e.jones at intel.com<mailto:bruce.e.jones at intel.com>>, "Chilcote Bacco, Derek A" <derek.a.chilcote.bacco at intel.com<mailto:derek.a.chilcote.bacco at intel.com>>, "Le, Huifeng" <huifeng.le at intel.com<mailto:huifeng.le at intel.com>>, "Qin, Kailun" <kailun.qin at intel.com<mailto:kailun.qin at intel.com>>, "Xu, Chenjie" <chenjie.xu at intel.com<mailto:chenjie.xu at intel.com>>, "Zhao, Forrest" <forrest.zhao at intel.com<mailto:forrest.zhao at intel.com>>, "Guo, Ruijing" <ruijing.guo at intel.com<mailto:ruijing.guo at intel.com>>
Subject: Questions about VXLAN Provider Network feature for StarlingX upstreaming

Hi Ian,

We are analyzing the VXLAN provider network feature for StarlingX upstreaming, in which case the patch 021ae1a firstly introduced VXLAN provider network and 509ea54, 1e368a3 added with the VXLAN dynamic/static mode.

Different from StarlingX, the upstream neutron VXLAN provider networks do not support to be associated with physical networks. They assume that VXLAN creates overlay networks where they do not require the VNI space to be accessible by a particular interface on a node. Would you please kindly share some business use cases or user stories with us about the physical-network-constrained VXLAN provider network introduced?

Let me know if any question. Thanks a lot!


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.starlingx.io/pipermail/starlingx-discuss/attachments/20180808/478883a0/attachment.html>

More information about the Starlingx-discuss mailing list