Hi Matt,

Please kindly find the attached spec rework for StarlingX provider network management feature upstreaming [1][2].

Any further comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

BR,

Kailun

From: Peters, Matt [mailto:Matt.Peters@windriver.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:38 PM
To: Qin, Kailun <kailun.qin@intel.com>
Cc: Jolliffe, Ian <Ian.Jolliffe@windriver.com>; Rowsell, Brent <Brent.Rowsell@windriver.com>; Khalil, Ghada <Ghada.Khalil@windriver.com>; Guo, Ruijing <ruijing.guo@intel.com>; Le, Huifeng <huifeng.le@intel.com>; Xu, Chenjie <chenjie.xu@intel.com>; Zhao, Forrest <forrest.zhao@intel.com>
Subject: Re: Provider Segment Range Management - Spec Rework Review

Hi Kailun,

Attached are my latest review comments.

Regards, Matt

From: "Qin, Kailun" <kailun.qin@intel.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 11:27 AM
To: "Peters, Matt" <Matt.Peters@windriver.com>
Cc: "Jolliffe, Ian" <Ian.Jolliffe@windriver.com>, Brent Rowsell <Brent.Rowsell@windriver.com>, Ghada Khalil <Ghada.Khalil@windriver.com>, "Guo, Ruijing" <ruijing.guo@intel.com>, "Le, Huifeng" <huifeng.le@intel.com>, "Xu, Chenjie" <chenjie.xu@intel.com>, "Zhao, Forrest" <forrest.zhao@intel.com>
Subject: RE: Provider Segment Range Management - Spec Rework Review

Matt,

Thank you for all the comments. Please kindly see the updated spec in the attached.

Let me know if any further suggestion.

BR,

Kailun

From: Peters, Matt [mailto:Matt.Peters@windriver.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 9:17 PM
To: Qin, Kailun <kailun.qin@intel.com>
Cc: Jolliffe, Ian <Ian.Jolliffe@windriver.com>; Rowsell, Brent <Brent.Rowsell@windriver.com>; Khalil, Ghada <Ghada.Khalil@windriver.com>; Guo, Ruijing <ruijing.guo@intel.com>; Le, Huifeng <huifeng.le@intel.com>; Xu, Chenjie <chenjie.xu@intel.com>; Zhao, Forrest <forrest.zhao@intel.com>
Subject: RE: Provider Segment Range Management - Spec Rework Review

See inline.

From: Qin, Kailun [mailto:kailun.qin@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2018 5:40 AM
To: Peters, Matt
Cc: Jolliffe, Ian; Rowsell, Brent; Khalil, Ghada; Guo, Ruijing; Le, Huifeng; Xu, Chenjie; Zhao, Forrest
Subject: RE: Provider Segment Range Management - Spec Rework Review

Hi Matt,

I am working on the update of spec. I have two main questions in response to your comments:

1. You recommended to use the generalized “network_segment_ranges” rather than including provider in the DB/API name and description.

Do you also expect the whole spec to avoid using the “provider” terminology and we pick “network segment range management” as the global subject?

[MP>] I think we should try to avoid linking this specifically to provider networks to avoid the same confusion and contention we received with the original spec.

2. I proposed an extended to attribute to the resource “networks” which you think is not required, as the network entity already has the “provider” extension that can be used to assign the required provider attributes upon creation.

I agree with you. But the initiative of introducing this attribute, is to provide users with admin privilege the ability to specify the underlying provider segment *range* when creating networks (NOT just a specific segment ID -- what the “provider” extension does). This aims to cover the scenarios described in UseCase III of the spec, which are also proposed in this bp: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/extend-api-for-hpb.

Our proposal is related w/ segment range and has a larger scope, which is able to cover the cases described in the cited bp if with that attribute. Do you suggest that we cover UseCase III in our bp?

[MP>] I don’t feel we need to support a range at the network level. I feel the tenant level scope is sufficient and solves the use-cases we have encountered. If a customer really wants to select a segment ID for a network, they can use the provider extension rather than having it specifically selected from a range. I think we should focus on the main use case of having pools of managed segment ranges that can either be shared or assigned to a specific tenant.

Please let me know what your thoughts are. Great thanks!

BR,

Kailun

From: Peters, Matt [mailto:Matt.Peters@windriver.com]
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 10:07 PM
To: Qin, Kailun <kailun.qin@intel.com>
Cc: Jolliffe, Ian <Ian.Jolliffe@windriver.com>; Rowsell, Brent <Brent.Rowsell@windriver.com>; Khalil, Ghada <Ghada.Khalil@windriver.com>; Guo, Ruijing <ruijing.guo@intel.com>; Le, Huifeng <huifeng.le@intel.com>; Xu, Chenjie <chenjie.xu@intel.com>; Zhao, Forrest <forrest.zhao@intel.com>
Subject: RE: Provider Segment Range Management - Spec Rework Review

Attached are my review comments and suggested changes.

NOTE: I had to change the format in order to embed my review comments, but it can continue to be an RST file format.

Regards, Matt

From: Qin, Kailun [mailto:kailun.qin@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 10:36 AM
To: Peters, Matt
Cc: Jolliffe, Ian; Rowsell, Brent; Khalil, Ghada; Guo, Ruijing; Le, Huifeng; Qin, Kailun; Xu, Chenjie; Zhao, Forrest
Subject: Provider Segment Range Management - Spec Rework Review

Hi Matt,

Please kindly find in the attached the drafted rework of provider segment range management spec.

I made the updates directly on the upstream spec patch so that figures/tables/format can be kept as is. Excuse me for the inconvenience to make comments in a rst file. Please kindly leave a tag where you would like to comment so that I can filter them out.

Great thanks!

BR,

Kailun