Wuhongning [mailto:wuhongn...@huawei.com] wrote:
>Does it make sense to move all advanced extension out of ML2, like security >group, qos...? Then we can just talk about advanced service itself, without >bothering basic neutron object (network/subnet/port) A modular layer 3 (ML3) analogous to ML2 sounds like a good idea. I still think it's too late in the game to be shooting down all the work that the GBP team has put in unless there's a really clean and effective way of running AND iterating on GBP in conjunction with Neutron without being part of the Juno release. As far as I can tell they've worked really hard to follow the process and accommodate input. They shouldn't have to wait multiple more releases on a hypothetical refactoring of how L3+ vs L2 is structured. But, just so I'm not making a horrible mistake, can someone reassure me that GBP isn't removing the constructs of network/subnet/port from Neutron? I'm under the impression that GBP is adding a higher level abstraction but that it's not ripping basic constructs like network/subnet/port out of the existing API. If I'm wrong about that I'll have to change my opinion. We need those fundamental networking constructs to be present and accessible to users that want/need to deal with them. I'm viewing GBP as just a higher level abstraction over the top. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev