Just to make sure you're aware of that - there is this new Curvature
Network Topology view since Liberty [1]. Maybe you want to integrate
with it as well...
[1] https://www.openstack.org/software/liberty/
--
-
Andreas (IRC: scheuran)
On Mi, 2016-03-16 at 12:30 +0900, Soichi Shigeta wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please find attached file.
> Yet another design of the Network Topology Tab.
>
> # I couldn't upload pdf files to the Wiki.
> When I tried, a message ".pdf file is not permitted"
> was shown.
>
> Regards,
> Soichi
>
> >
> > Hi Anil, and folks,
> >
> > Thank you for your comments.
> >
> >> Thanks Soichi and Kaz for your work on implementing Horizon
> >> (dashboard) support for TaaS. The proposal (with screen shots)
> >> discussed in our recent IRC meeting look very nice. Here are some
> >> additional suggestions for improvement.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. General
> >>
> >> a. When a port is being selected (for a tap-service instance or
> >> a tap-flow) it would be nice to also provide some extra information
> >> associated with that port, such as the VM it belongs to and the IP
> >> address. This will look very similar to what is being done today when
> >> associating a floating IP with a VM vNIC. The extra context will allow
> >> users to identify their source and destination end-points with more
> >> ease. If a VM is not currently associated with a port then the extra
> >> information is not necessary.
> >
> > I agree with you.
> > It is difficult for users to select an appropriate port
> > by seeing only uuid.
> >
> > I didn't explain in the submitted document, in the current
> > implementation, not only uuid but also name is also shown
> > if a port is given a name.
> >
> > I agree to show IP address.
> > i.e., name, uuid, and IP address are shown for each port.
> > Please refer p.1 of the attached file.
> >
> > On the other hand, in terms of modification cost, I'd like
> > to disagree to show associated VM.
> > Because Neutron doesn't know association between a port and
> > a VM, we need to send a query to Nova.
> > Of course, I agree to implement this if requested from field.
> >
> >
> >> b. When selecting the traffic monitoring direction, it would be
> >> nice to provide two check boxes, one for 'ingress' and the other for
> >> 'egress'. A user wishing to monitor a port in both directions can
> >> select both check boxes. I feel this looks better than having an
> >> option called 'both'.
> >
> > In terms of consistency with the option in CLI, I prefer to
> > chose one of the both/ingress/egress from pull down menu.
> >
> > To avoid confusions, it had better to say something like
> > "ingress (to instance)" and "egress (from instance)".
> >
> >
> >> 2. Using the Tap Services Tab
> >>
> >> a. Allow tap-flow-create and tap-flow-delete operations to also
> >> be carried out from here. This will let users who prefer working in
> >> this fashion get everything done from the same place.
> >
> > I will plan to add "tap-flow-create" and "tap-flow-delete" button
> > on the tap-service tab.
> >
> > But, I'm afraid that a lot of ports will be listed as candidates
> > when a user starts tap-flow-create from here.
> > Because no instance (VM) is selected here, we can not filter to
> > list.
> >
> >
> >> b. Provide a way to list tap flows currently associated with a
> >> tap service.
> >
> > Excuse me, I didn't mention about it on the submitted document.
> > This is done on the overview of a tap-service.
> > Please refer p.2 of the attached file.
> >
> >
> >> c. Allow multiple tap-flows to be created at the same time. Let
> >> the user pick multiple source ports (and traffic monitoring
> >> directions) and have all of them attached to a designated tap-service.
> >
> > I'd like to consider this in the future.
> > Because it seems taking larger man-hour cost to realize.
> > (consideration with man-hour we have)
> > Additionally, I think we need to take care of error cases
> > such as a part of tap-flow creation failed.
> >
> >
> >> 3. Using the Network Topology Tab
> >>
> >> a. Allow tap-create and tap-delete operations to be also carried
> >> out from here. This will allow users who prefer working in this
> >> fashion get everything done from the same place. The user can pick the
> >> destination port (from one of the existing VMs) in the same way that a
> >> source port is picked when creating a tap-flow.
> >
> > Yes, I think this is a good idea.
> > I will plan to add "tap-flow-create" and "tap-flow-delete" buttons
> > on the Network Topology tab.
> > # As mentioned in 2-a., I'm afraid that a lot of ports will be
> > listed as candidates when a user starts tap-flow-create from
> > here.
> >
> > Actually, I want to add "tap-flow-create" and "tap-flow-delete"
>
