Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2017-05-15 12:40:17 -0400: > On 05/14/2017 01:02 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > > ** Bikeshed #1 ** > > > > Are "internal" and "external" ok with folks as terms for those two ideas? > > Yup, ++ from me on the above. > > > ** Bikeshed #2 ** > > > > Anybody have a problem with the key name "network-models"? > > They're not network models. They're access/connectivity policies. :) > > > (Incidentally, the idea from this is borrowed from GCE's > > "compute#accessConfig" [0] - although they only have one model in their > > enum: "ONE_TO_ONE_NAT") > > > > In a perfect future world where we have per-service capabilities > > discovery I'd love for such information to be exposed directly by > > neutron. > > I actually don't see this as a Neutron thing. It's the *workload* > connectivity expectations that you're describing, not anything to do > with networks, subnets or ports. > > So, I think actually Nova would be a better home for this capability > discovery, for similar reasons why get-me-a-network was mostly a Nova > user experience... > > So, I suppose I'd prefer to call this thing an "access policy" or > "access model", optionally prefixing that with "network", i.e. "network > access policy".
We have enough things overloading the term "policy." Let's get out a thesaurus for this one. ;-) Doug > > > ** Bikeshed #3 ** > > > > What do we call the general concepts represented by fixed and floating > > ips? Do we use the words "fixed" and "floating"? Do we instead try > > something else, such as "direct" and "nat"? > > > > I have two proposals for the values in our enum: > > > > #1 - using fixed / floating > > > > ipv4-external-fixed > > ipv4-external-floating > > ipv4-internal-fixed > > ipv4-internal-floating > > ipv6-fixed > > Definitely -1 on using fixed/floating. > > > #2 - using direct / nat > > > > ipv4-external-direct > > ipv4-external-nat > > ipv4-internal-direct > > ipv4-internal-nat > > ipv6-direct > > I'm good with direct and nat. +1 from me. > > > On the other hand, "direct" isn't exactly a commonly used word in this > > context. I asked a ton of people at the Summit last week and nobody > > could come up with a better term for "IP that is configured inside of > > the server's network stack". "non-natted", "attached", "routed" and > > "normal" were all suggested. I'm not sure any of those are super-great - > > so I'm proposing "direct" - but please if you have a better suggestion > > please make it. > > The other problem with the term "direct" is that there is already a vNIC > type of the same name which refers to a guest's vNIC using a host > passthrough device. > > So, maybe non-nat or no-nat would be better? Or hell, make it a boolean > is_nat or has_nat if we're really just referring to whether an IP is > NATted or not? > > Best, > -jay > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
