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.
BR,
Kailun
From: Jolliffe, Ian [mailto:Ian.Jolliffe@windriver.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 5:16 AM
To: Qin, Kailun <kailun.qin@intel.com>
Cc: Troyer, Dean <dean.troyer@intel.com>; Jones, Bruce E <bruce.e.jones@intel.com>; Chilcote Bacco, Derek A <derek.a.chilcote.bacco@intel.com>; Le, Huifeng <huifeng.le@intel.com>; Xu, Chenjie <chenjie.xu@intel.com>; Zhao, Forrest <forrest.zhao@intel.com>;
Guo, Ruijing <ruijing.guo@intel.com>; Rowsell, Brent <Brent.Rowsell@windriver.com>; Peters, Matt <Matt.Peters@windriver.com>; Khalil, Ghada <Ghada.Khalil@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.
Regards;
Ian
From:
"Qin, Kailun" <kailun.qin@intel.com>
Date: Monday, August 6, 2018 at 3:03 AM
To: Ian Jolliffe <Ian.Jolliffe@windriver.com>
Cc: "Troyer, Dean" <dean.troyer@intel.com>, "Jones, Bruce E" <bruce.e.jones@intel.com>, "Chilcote Bacco, Derek A" <derek.a.chilcote.bacco@intel.com>,
"Le, Huifeng" <huifeng.le@intel.com>, "Qin, Kailun" <kailun.qin@intel.com>, "Xu, Chenjie" <chenjie.xu@intel.com>, "Zhao, Forrest"
<forrest.zhao@intel.com>, "Guo, Ruijing" <ruijing.guo@intel.com>
Subject: Questions about VXLAN Provider Network feature for StarlingX upstreaming
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!
BR,
Kailun