My understanding is that we want a single, canonical OS network service API. That API can then be implemented by different "service engines" on that back end via a plug-in/driver model. The way additional features are added to the canonical API that may not be core or for widespread adoption (e.g. something vendor specific) is via extensions. You can take a look at the proposed OS compute API spec<http://wiki.openstack.org/OpenStackAPI_1-1> to see how extensions are implemented there. Also, Jorge Williams has done a good write up of the concept here<http://wiki.openstack.org/JorgeWilliams?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=Extensions.pdf>.
Erik From: Romain Lenglet <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:03:57 +0900 To: 石井 久治 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure blueprint Hi Ishii-san, On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 at 16:28, 石井 久治 wrote: Hello Hiroshi-san >> Do you mean that the former API is an interface that is >> defined in OpenStack project, and the latter API is >> a vendor specific API? > My understanding is that yes, that's what he means. I also think so. In addition, I feel it is issue that what network functions should be defined as generic API, and what network functions should be defined as plugin specific API. How do you think ? I propose to apply the following criteria to determine which operations belong to the generic API: - any operation called by the compute service (Nova) directly MUST belong to the generic API; - any operation called by users (REST API, etc.) MAY belong to the generic API; - any operation belonging to the generic API MUST be independent from details of specific network service plugins (e.g. specific network models, specific supported protocols, etc.), i.e. the operation can be supported by every network service plugin imaginable, which means that if one can come up with a counter-example plugin that cannot implement that operation, then the operation cannot belong to the generic API. How about that? Regards, -- Romain Lenglet Thanks Hisaharu Ishii (2011/02/15 16:18), Romain Lenglet wrote: Hi Hiroshi, On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 at 15:47, Hiroshi DEMPO wrote: Hello Hisaharu san I am not sure about the differences between generic network API and plugin X specific network service API. Do you mean that the former API is an interface that is defined in OpenStack project, and the latter API is a vendor specific API? My understanding is that yes, that's what he means. -- Romain Lenglet Thanks Hiroshi -----Original Message----- From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> t] On Behalf Of 石井 久治 Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:48 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure blueprint Hi, all As we have said before, we have started designing and writing POC codes of network service. - I know that there were several documents on the new network service issue that were locally exchanged so far. Why not collecting them into one place and share them publicly? Based on these documents, I created an image of implementation (attached). And I propose the following set of methods as the generic network service APIs. - create_vnic(): vnic_id Create a VNIC and return the ID of the created VNIC. - list__vnics(vm_id): [vnic_id] Return the list of vnic_id, where vnic_id is the ID of a VNIC. - destroy_vnic(vnic_id) Remove a VNIC from its VM, given its ID, and destroy it. - plug(vnic_id, port_id) Plug the VNIC with ID vnic_id into the port with ID port_id managed by this network service. - unplug(vnic_id) Unplug the VNIC from its port, previously plugged by calling plug(). - create_network(): network_id Create a new logical network. - list_networks(project_id): [network_id] Return the list of logical networks available for project with ID project_id. - destroy_network(network_id) Destroy the logical network with ID network_id. - create_port(network_id): port_id Create a port in the logical network with ID network_id, and return the port's ID. - list_ports(network_id): [port_id] Return the list of IDs of ports in a network given its ID. - destroy_port(port_id) Destroy port with ID port_id. This design is a first draft. So we would appreciate it if you would give us some comments. In parallel with it, we are writing POC codes and uploading it to "lp:~ntt-pf-lab/nova/network-service". Thanks, Hisaharu Ishii (2011/02/02 19:02), Koji IIDA wrote: Hi, all We, NTT PF Lab., also agree to discuss about network service at the Diablo DS. However, we would really like to include network service in the Diablo release because our customers strongly demand this feature. And we think that it is quite important to merge new network service to trunk soon after Diablo DS so that every developer can contribute their effort based on the new code. We are planning to provide source code for network service in a couple of weeks. We would appreciate it if you would review it and give us some feedback before the next design summit. Ewan, thanks for your making new entry at wiki page (*1). We will also post our comments soon. (*1) http://wiki.openstack.org/NetworkService Thanks, Koji Iida (2011/01/31 21:19), Ewan Mellor wrote: I will collect the documents together as you suggest, and I agree that we need to get the requirements laid out again. Please subscribe to the blueprint on Launchpad -- that way you will be notified of updates. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/bexar-network-service Thanks, Ewan. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of Masanori ITOH Sent: 31 January 2011 10:31 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure blueprint Hello, We, NTT DATA, also agree with majority of folks. It's realistic shooting for the the Diablo time frame to have the new network service. Here are my suggestions: - I know that there were several documents on the new network service issue that were locally exchanged so far. Why not collecting them into one place and share them publicly? - I know that the discussion went into a bit implementation details. But now, what about starting the discussion from the higher level design things (again)? Especially, from the requirements level. Any thoughts? Masanori From: John Purrier<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure blueprint Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 06:06:26 +0900 You are correct, the networking service will be more complex than the volume service. The existing blueprint is pretty comprehensive, not only encompassing the functionality that exists in today's network service in Nova, but also forward looking functionality around flexible networking/openvswitch and layer 2 network bridging between cloud deployments. This will be a longer term project and will serve as the bedrock for many future OpenStack capabilities. John -----Original Message----- From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Thierry Carrez Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 1:52 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure blueprint John Purrier wrote: Here is the suggestion. It is clear from the response on the list that refactoring Nova in the Cactus timeframe will be too risky, particularly as we are focusing Cactus on Stability, Reliability, and Deployability (along with a complete OpenStack API). For Cactus we should leave the network and volume services alone in Nova to minimize destabilizing the code base. In parallel, we can initiate the Network and Volume Service projects in Launchpad and allow the teams that form around these efforts to move in parallel, perhaps seeding their projects from the existing Nova code. Once we complete Cactus we can have discussions at the Diablo DS about progress these efforts have made and how best to move forward with Nova integration and determine release targets. I agree that there is value in starting the proof-of-concept work around the network services, without sacrificing too many developers to it, so that a good plan can be presented and discussed at the Diablo Summit. If volume sounds relatively simple to me, network sounds significantly more complex (just looking at the code ,network manager code is currently used both by nova-compute and nova-network to modify the local networking stack, so it's more than just handing out IP addresses through an API). Cheers, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Release Manager, OpenStack _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp Attachments: - smime.p7s _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail at [email protected], and delete the original message. Your cooperation is appreciated.
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
