I missed the roundtable and hackathon, my bad guys :( I liked the ideas that you (all) put forward. The VR is interesting and a nice feature to have, but it causes some pain to maintain in our development cycles. The idea to split the current VR into NFV is great; this can make things more pluggable and take ACS to NFV (officially). We could develop a framework in ACS (an API method?) that creates a system VM called NFV where people (vendors, enthusiast, users and others) can then extend and add their functions/systems there. The problem is the work required to design and develop such thing.
I use Daan`s words here, this is a community effort and not a single company or individual. What do you guys think? We could start creating a roadmap of when we want this feature (milestones for delivering piece by piece of the complete feature), then the draft of a proposal, and later define the implementation job, so people of the community can embrace it. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@shapeblue.com > wrote: > Great thanks Simon, > > Just want to play bingo a bit; dividing the VR into VNFs (virtual network > functions) was mentioned. This pertains to the mention of making the VR > more modular ;) > > Hopefully everybody is inspired by this because no one company or person > is going to make this happen. > > Dahn > > On 23/05/17 14:16, "Simon Weller" <swel...@ena.com.INVALID> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > During the CCC last week in Miami, we held a roundtable/hackathon to > discuss some of the major areas the community would like to focus more > attention. > > > The discussions were passionate and were mainly focused around > networking and our current use of our home-spun Virtual Router. > > > For most of the us, the VR has become a challenging beast, mainly due > to how difficult it is to end-to-end test for new releases. > > Quite often PRs are pushed that fix an issue on one feature set, but > break another unintentionally. This has a great deal to do with how > inter-mingled all the features are currently. > > > We floated some ideas related to short term VR fixes in order to make > it more modular, as well as API driven, rather than the currently SSH JSON > injections. > > A number of possible alternatives were also brought up to see what VR > feature coverage could be handled by other virtual appliances currently out > on the market. > > > These included (but not limited to): > > > VyOS (current PR out there for integration via a plugin – thanks > Matthew!) > > Microtek (Commerical) > > Openswitch/Flexswitch > > Cloud Router > > > The second major topic of the day was related to how we want to > integrate networking moving forward. > > > A fair number of individuals felt that we shouldn't be focusing so > much on integrating network functions, but relying on other network > orchestrators to hand this. > > It was also noted that what draws a lot of people to ACS is the fact > we have a VR and do provide these functions out of the box. > > > We discussed how we could standardize the network sub system to use > some sort of queuing bus to make it easier for others projects to integrate > their solutions. > > The current plugin implementation is fairly complex and often other > projects (or commercial entities) put it into the too hard basket, until > someone either does it themselves or is willing to pay for the development. > > Most also felt it was important to maintain a default network function > that works out of the box so that the complexity of a full orchestrator > could be avoided if not needed. > > > I'm sure I've missed some key points, so hopefully this starts a > discussion with the entire community of where we focused next. > > > Thanks to all those that participated on Tuesday afternoon. > > > - Si > > > > > daan.hoogl...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > @shapeblue > > > > -- Rafael Weingärtner
