Thanks Paul. Feedback like this, from actual users of neutron in large deployments, is the very reason why I feel so strongly that we need to keep this a high priority work item.
Regards, Mandeep On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 9:28 AM, CARVER, PAUL <pc2...@att.com> wrote: > Mohammad Banikazemi wrote: > > >in Atlanta the support was overwhelmingly positive in my opinion. I > just wanted to make sure this does not get >lost in our discussions. > > Absolutely. I hadn’t been following the group policy discussions prior > to the summit but I was very impressed with what I saw and heard. > > > >to in particular discuss the possibility of making the code less tightly > coupled with Neutron core. > > +1 to making it less tightly coupled (although I haven’t been inside the > code to have an opinion on how tightly coupled it is now) > > Let’s keep in mind OSI-like layers and well defined interfaces between > them. Coming from a hardware networking background I find it very > convenient to think in terms of ports, networks, subnets and routers. Those > concepts should continue to be basic building blocks of software defined > networks. The layer 4+ stuff should be added on top with clean interfaces > that don’t entangle functionality up and down the stack. > > Strict OSI layer compliance has never been a great success, but the > general concept has been very useful for a long time All the most painful > protocols for a network person to deal with are the ones like SIP where > clean separation of layers was indiscriminately violated. > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev