Are these NSX routers *functionally* different? What we're talking about here is a router which, whether it's distributed or not, behaves *exactly the same*. So as I say, maybe it's an SLA thing, but 'distributed' isn't really user meaningful if the user can't actually prove he's received a distributed router by using the APIs or seeing traffic flow differently.
I think, by the names you're referring to, the NSX routers acutally have different user visible behaviour, and that's a different matter entirely, obviously you want, as a user, to choose one or the other. -- Ian. On 10 December 2013 23:21, Vasudevan, Swaminathan (PNB Roseville) < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Nachi/Akihiro motoki, > > I am not clear. > > Today the L3 Service Plugin does not support the “service_type” attribute to > define the provider option. > > > > Are we suggesting that we need to include the service_type for the L3 Service > Plugin and then we can make use of the “service_type” attribute to > distinguish between the “edge” and “distributed”. > > > > > > So if I understand correctly, a “provider” router will be an Edge router and > a non-provider router will be a “distributed router”. > > > > Thanks > > Swami > > > > >I'm +1 for 'provider'. > > > > 2013/12/9 Akihiro Motoki <[email protected]>: > > > Neutron defines "provider" attribute and it is/will be used in advanced > > > services (LB, FW, VPN). > > > Doesn't it fit for a distributed router case? If we can cover all services > > > with one concept, it would be nice. > > > > > > According to this thread, we assumes at least two types "edge" and > > > "distributed". > > > Though "edge" and "distributed" is a type of implementations, I think they > > > are some kind of "provider". > > > > > > I just would like to add an option. I am open to "provider" vs "distirbute" > > > attributes. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Akihiro > > > > > > (2013/12/10 7:01), Vasudevan, Swaminathan (PNB Roseville) wrote: > > >> Hi Folks, > > >> > > >> We are in the process of defining the API for the Neutron Distributed > > >> Virtual Router, and we have a question. > > >> > > >> Just wanted to get the feedback from the community before we implement and > > >> post for review. > > >> > > >> We are planning to use the “distributed” flag for the routers that are > > >> supposed to be routing traffic locally (both East West and North South). > > >> This “distributed” flag is already there in the “neutronclient” API, but > > >> currently only utilized by the “Nicira Plugin”. > > >> We would like to go ahead and use the same “distributed” flag and add an > > >> extension to the router table to accommodate the “distributed flag”. > > >> > > >> Please let us know your feedback. > > >> > > >> Thanks. > > >> > > >> Swaminathan Vasudevan > > >> Systems Software Engineer (TC) > > >> HP Networking > > >> Hewlett-Packard > > >> 8000 Foothills Blvd > > >> M/S 5541 > > >> Roseville, CA - 95747 > > >> tel: 916.785.0937 > > >> fax: 916.785.1815 > > >> email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] > >> <[email protected]>> > > > > > > Swaminathan Vasudevan > > Systems Software Engineer (TC) > > > > > > HP Networking > > Hewlett-Packard > > 8000 Foothills Blvd > > M/S 5541 > > Roseville, CA - 95747 > > tel: 916.785.0937 > > fax: 916.785.1815 > > email: [email protected] > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
