|
Re: 答复: Project Proposal from China Mobile
George Zhao
You may want to create two wiki pages for the two proposals respectively, then refer them by links in the email.
George
发件人：段凯元
收件人：hagbard
抄送：project-proposals
时间：2017-07-20 21:38:07
主题:Re: [Project-proposals] Project Proposal from China Mobile
Hi, Warnicke
Thanks for your reply, I will first share our ideas and the details about the two proposals here:
1, Hardware TTP
Our team have defined a standard TTP(Typed Table Pattern) pipeline ，which is adaptive for Neutron at the Northbound, for the hardware switch. We use OpenFlow on hardware switches to manage the communication for Layer 2&Layer 3, including the communication
between physical servers, physical server and VM, server and vRouters. It can also support the security group policy management, QoS and some other basic function.
I know there is already a project related to TTP in the community, but it has not updated and code contribution for a long time and its orientation is also unclear, so we hope to lead a new project. It is ok if you prefer a project integration, but we need
to solve the collision before that.
2, GNT(General network topology)
The goal of the project is to provide a unified topological layer, which can monitor different kinds of devices(ovsdb, hardwareVTEP, netconf) and computing resources(physical or virtual machine). This layer will shield the difference of the southbound protocals,
make other business modules easily get the overall topo without adaption for different protocals.
Besides the function to extend logical topo through the code itself, we have defined the yang model to provide the possibilty that let business modules for other southbound protocals get data from or write data to the yang model tree.
In addition, this project refers to Neutron of the northbound configuration to analyze the distribution of different kinds of network resources.
The existing topology module is focus on the OpenFlow protocal and no design for the shield of other protocal resources.
Thus, we hope the our project, GNT, can extend the topology of logical network and reduce the coupling between modules.
We still have some unclear parts and we hope you can give us some advices.
Regards,
Kaiyuan
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----邮件原文----
发件人：Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>
收件人："段凯元" <duankaiyuan@...>
抄 送: project-proposals <project-proposals@...>
发送时间：2017-07-21 03:22:04
主题：Re: [Project-proposals] Project Proposal from China Mobile
Good place to start. You might also cc discuss
Ed
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal from China Mobile
Hi, Warnicke
Thanks for your reply, I will first share our ideas and the details about the two proposals here:
1, Hardware TTP Our team have defined a standard TTP(Typed Table Pattern) pipeline ，which is adaptive for Neutron at the Northbound, for the hardware switch. We use OpenFlow on hardware switches to manage the communication for Layer 2&Layer 3, including the communication between physical servers, physical server and VM, server and vRouters. It can also support the security group policy management, QoS and some other basic function. I know there is already a project related to TTP in the community, but it has not updated and code contribution for a long time and its orientation is also unclear, so we hope to lead a new project. It is ok if you prefer a project integration, but we need to solve the collision before that.
2, GNT(General network topology) The goal of the project is to provide a unified topological layer, which can monitor different kinds of devices(ovsdb, hardwareVTEP, netconf) and computing resources(physical or virtual machine). This layer will shield the difference of the southbound protocals, make other business modules easily get the overall topo without adaption for different protocals. Besides the function to extend logical topo through the code itself, we have defined the yang model to provide the possibilty that let business modules for other southbound protocals get data from or write data to the yang model tree. In addition, this project refers to Neutron of the northbound configuration to analyze the distribution of different kinds of network resources. The existing topology module is focus on the OpenFlow protocal and no design for the shield of other protocal resources. Thus, we hope the our project, GNT, can extend the topology of logical network and reduce the coupling between modules.
We still have some unclear parts and we hope you can give us some advices.
Regards, Kaiyuan
----邮件原文----
发件人：Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>
收件人："段凯元" <duankaiyuan@...>
抄 送: project-proposals <project-proposals@...>
发送时间：2017-07-21 03:22:04
主题：Re: [Project-proposals] Project Proposal from China Mobile
Good place to start. You might also cc discuss Ed
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal from China Mobile
Hello Kaiyauan, On 20/07/17 10:51, 段凯元 wrote: One proposal is about the Hardware TTP(Typed Table Pattern) and the
other one is about GNT(General Network Topology). I think it is worth drafting project proposals, at least to support the discussions of what is being proposed. Thanks, Robert
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal from China Mobile
Edward Warnicke
Good place to start. You might also cc discuss
Ed
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:51 AM, 段凯元 <duankaiyuan@...> wrote:
Hi, everyone
Our team from China Mobile are preparing to create two new project proposals recently, But I am wondering is this the right way to send emails to this list if we want to have a discussion about the feasibility and the details before the real proposal. One proposal is about the Hardware TTP(Typed Table Pattern) and the other one is about GNT(General Network Topology). If this is the right way, I will give you more details about our plan.
Thanks, Kaiyuan
_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals
|
|
|
Project Proposal from China Mobile
Hi, everyone
Our team from China Mobile are preparing to create two new project proposals recently, But I am wondering is this the right way to send emails to this list if we want to have a discussion about the feasibility and the details before the real proposal. One proposal is about the Hardware TTP(Typed Table Pattern) and the other one is about GNT(General Network Topology). If this is the right way, I will give you more details about our plan.
Thanks, Kaiyuan
|
|
|
Re: A new project proposal vpp
Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Colin Dixon [mailto:colin@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 11:32 AM
To: George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@...>
Cc: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>; Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>; Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...>; project-proposals@...; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
I think OVIL is more than fine. I'll kick off the discussion on the TSC list.
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 6:14 PM, George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@...> wrote:
OVIL actually SGTM.
From: Yang, Yi Y [mailto:yi.y.yang@...]
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 5:49 PM
To: George Zhao; Ed Warnicke; Abhijit Kumbhare
Cc:
project-proposals@...; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)
Subject: RE: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
Ed disagrees with name which contains plugin because it will make people confused about plugins inside
of vpp and this project. If we don’t look at OVIL as an acronym, I think it is a neutral name.
In summary, I think we still use ovil, please forget “Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer” if you have
some concerns, I can remove “Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer” from wiki page if you mind.
Yes, it is vpp specific project, so “Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer” is just to show its relationship
with Opendaylight and VPP J
OVIL is not that bad, OVP is a good name as well.
I think the question here is Anil’s original question that whether this project is specific for VPP,
if yes, then both OVIL or OVP are fine.
Maybe we can name it as “ed”
J
From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@...]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 4:57 AM
To: Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...>
Cc: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>; Colin Dixon <colin@...>;
project-proposals@...; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:
OVIL sounds somewhat EVIL :)
Just curious: is "OpenDaylight VPP Interface Layer" too different from "VPP Plugin" proposed by Yi earlier? As a suggestion - if you want to avoid the evil sounding OVIL acronym,
yet want to hide the name VPP inside an acronym perhaps you could go with the name OVP (an acronym for "OpenDaylight VPP Plugin").
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Yes, we have a new name OVIL (Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer) for it, Ed agreed with this name
J So I think you can start formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list.
Because of name change, I drafted a new page for this,
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:OVIL, you can still use the old one
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Vpp for convenience.
From: Colin Dixon [mailto:colin@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:58 PM
To: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>
So, assuming the name is fixed, should we start a formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list?
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...> wrote:
Yi,
honeycomb/vbd is named that way :)
_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals
|
|
|
Re: A new project proposal vpp
I think OVIL is more than fine. I'll kick off the discussion on the TSC list.
--Colin
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 6:14 PM, George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@...> wrote:
OVIL actually SGTM.
From: Yang, Yi Y [mailto:yi.y.yang@...]
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 5:49 PM
To: George Zhao; Ed Warnicke; Abhijit Kumbhare
Cc: project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)
Subject: RE: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
Ed disagrees with name which contains plugin because it will make people confused about plugins inside of vpp and this project. If we don’t look at OVIL as
an acronym, I think it is a neutral name.
In summary, I think we still use ovil, please forget “Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer” if you have some concerns, I can remove “Opendaylight VPP Interface
Layer” from wiki page if you mind.
Yes, it is vpp specific project, so “Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer” is just to show its relationship with Opendaylight and VPP
J
OVIL is not that bad, OVP is a good name as well.
I think the question here is Anil’s original question that whether this project is specific for VPP, if yes, then both OVIL or OVP are fine.
Maybe we can name it as “ed”
J
From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@...]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 4:57 AM
To: Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...>
Cc: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>; Colin Dixon <colin@...>;
project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:
OVIL sounds somewhat EVIL :)
Just curious: is "OpenDaylight VPP Interface Layer" too different from "VPP Plugin" proposed by Yi earlier? As a suggestion - if you want to avoid the evil sounding OVIL acronym, yet want to hide the name VPP inside an acronym perhaps you
could go with the name OVP (an acronym for "OpenDaylight VPP Plugin").
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Yes, we have a new name OVIL (Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer) for it, Ed agreed with this name
J So I think you can start formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list.
Because of name change, I drafted a new page for this,
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:OVIL, you can still use the old one
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Vpp for convenience.
From: Colin Dixon [mailto:colin@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:58 PM
To: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>
So, assuming the name is fixed, should we start a formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list?
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...> wrote:
Yi,
honeycomb/vbd is named that way :)
_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals
|
|
|
Re: A new project proposal vpp
George Zhao
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Yang, Yi Y [mailto:yi.y.yang@...]
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 5:49 PM
To: George Zhao; Ed Warnicke; Abhijit Kumbhare
Cc: project-proposals@...; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)
Subject: RE: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
Ed disagrees with name which contains plugin because it will make people confused about plugins inside of vpp and this project. If we don’t look at OVIL as
an acronym, I think it is a neutral name.
In summary, I think we still use ovil, please forget “Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer” if you have some concerns, I can remove “Opendaylight VPP Interface
Layer” from wiki page if you mind.
Yes, it is vpp specific project, so “Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer” is just to show its relationship with Opendaylight and VPP
J
From: George Zhao [mailto:George.Y.Zhao@...]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 7:49 AM
To: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>; Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>; Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...>
Cc: project-proposals@...; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>
Subject: RE: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
OVIL is not that bad, OVP is a good name as well.
I think the question here is Anil’s original question that whether this project is specific for VPP, if yes, then both OVIL or OVP are fine.
Maybe we can name it as “ed”
J
From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@...]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 4:57 AM
To: Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...>
Cc: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>; Colin Dixon <colin@...>;
project-proposals@...; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:
OVIL sounds somewhat EVIL :)
Just curious: is "OpenDaylight VPP Interface Layer" too different from "VPP Plugin" proposed by Yi earlier? As a suggestion - if you want to avoid the evil sounding OVIL acronym, yet want to hide the name VPP inside an acronym perhaps you
could go with the name OVP (an acronym for "OpenDaylight VPP Plugin").
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Yes, we have a new name OVIL (Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer) for it, Ed agreed with this name
J So I think you can start formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list.
Because of name change, I drafted a new page for this,
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:OVIL, you can still use the old one
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Vpp for convenience.
From: Colin Dixon [mailto:colin@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:58 PM
To: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>
So, assuming the name is fixed, should we start a formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list?
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...> wrote:
Yi,
honeycomb/vbd is named that way :)
|
|
|
Re: A new project proposal vpp
Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
Ed disagrees with name which contains plugin because it will make people confused about plugins inside of vpp and this project. If we don’t look at OVIL as an
acronym, I think it is a neutral name.
In summary, I think we still use ovil, please forget “Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer” if you have some concerns, I can remove “Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer”
from wiki page if you mind.
Yes, it is vpp specific project, so “Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer” is just to show its relationship with Opendaylight and VPP
J
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: George Zhao [mailto:George.Y.Zhao@...]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 7:49 AM
To: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>; Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>; Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...>
Cc: project-proposals@...; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>
Subject: RE: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
OVIL is not that bad, OVP is a good name as well.
I think the question here is Anil’s original question that whether this project is specific for VPP, if yes, then both OVIL or OVP are fine.
Maybe we can name it as “ed”
J
From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@...]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 4:57 AM
To: Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...>
Cc: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>; Colin Dixon <colin@...>;
project-proposals@...; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:
OVIL sounds somewhat EVIL :)
Just curious: is "OpenDaylight VPP Interface Layer" too different from "VPP Plugin" proposed by Yi earlier? As a suggestion - if you want to avoid the evil sounding OVIL acronym, yet want to hide the name VPP inside an acronym perhaps you
could go with the name OVP (an acronym for "OpenDaylight VPP Plugin").
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Yes, we have a new name OVIL (Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer) for it, Ed agreed with this name
J So I think you can start formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list.
Because of name change, I drafted a new page for this,
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:OVIL, you can still use the old one
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Vpp for convenience.
From: Colin Dixon [mailto:colin@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:58 PM
To: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>
So, assuming the name is fixed, should we start a formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list?
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...> wrote:
Yi,
honeycomb/vbd is named that way :)
|
|
|
Re: A new project proposal vpp
George Zhao
OVIL is not that bad, OVP is a good name as well.
I think the question here is Anil’s original question that whether this project is specific for VPP, if yes, then both OVIL or OVP are fine.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: project-proposals-bounces@... [mailto:project-proposals-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Yang, Yi Y
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 4:28 PM
To: Ed Warnicke; Abhijit Kumbhare
Cc: project-proposals@...; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
Maybe we can name it as “ed”
J
From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@...]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 4:57 AM
To: Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...>
Cc: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>; Colin Dixon <colin@...>; project-proposals@...; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:
OVIL sounds somewhat EVIL :)
Just curious: is "OpenDaylight VPP Interface Layer" too different from "VPP Plugin" proposed by Yi earlier? As a suggestion - if you want to avoid the evil sounding OVIL acronym, yet want to hide the name VPP inside an acronym perhaps you
could go with the name OVP (an acronym for "OpenDaylight VPP Plugin").
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Yes, we have a new name OVIL (Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer) for it, Ed agreed with this name
J So I think you can start formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list.
Because of name change, I drafted a new page for this,
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:OVIL, you can still use the old one
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Vpp for convenience.
From: Colin Dixon [mailto:colin@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:58 PM
To: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>
So, assuming the name is fixed, should we start a formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list?
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...> wrote:
Yi,
honeycomb/vbd is named that way :)
|
|
|
Re: A new project proposal vpp
Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
Maybe we can name it as “ed”
J
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@...]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 4:57 AM
To: Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...>
Cc: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>; Colin Dixon <colin@...>; project-proposals@...; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:
OVIL sounds somewhat EVIL :)
Just curious: is "OpenDaylight VPP Interface Layer" too different from "VPP Plugin" proposed by Yi earlier? As a suggestion - if you want to avoid the evil sounding OVIL acronym, yet want to hide the name VPP inside an acronym perhaps you
could go with the name OVP (an acronym for "OpenDaylight VPP Plugin").
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Yes, we have a new name OVIL (Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer) for it, Ed agreed with this name
J So I think you can start formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list.
Because of name change, I drafted a new page for this,
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:OVIL, you can still use the old one
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Vpp for convenience.
From: Colin Dixon [mailto:colin@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:58 PM
To: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>
So, assuming the name is fixed, should we start a formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list?
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...> wrote:
Yi,
honeycomb/vbd is named that way :)
|
|
|
Re: A new project proposal vpp
Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
Ed, I’ll remove work GBP from wiki page to reflect your concern
J
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Abhijit Kumbhare [mailto:abhijitkoss@...]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 3:58 AM
To: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
Cc: Colin Dixon <colin@...>; Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>; project-proposals@...; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
OVIL sounds somewhat EVIL :)
Just curious: is "OpenDaylight VPP Interface Layer" too different from "VPP Plugin" proposed by Yi earlier? As a suggestion - if you want to avoid the evil sounding OVIL acronym, yet want to hide the name VPP inside an acronym perhaps you
could go with the name OVP (an acronym for "OpenDaylight VPP Plugin").
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: A new project proposal vpp
Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
OVP is Windriver product name, I don’t think we can use it.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Abhijit Kumbhare [mailto:abhijitkoss@...]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 3:58 AM
To: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
Cc: Colin Dixon <colin@...>; Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>; project-proposals@...; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
OVIL sounds somewhat EVIL :)
Just curious: is "OpenDaylight VPP Interface Layer" too different from "VPP Plugin" proposed by Yi earlier? As a suggestion - if you want to avoid the evil sounding OVIL acronym, yet want to hide the name VPP inside an acronym perhaps you
could go with the name OVP (an acronym for "OpenDaylight VPP Plugin").
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Yes, we have a new name OVIL (Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer) for it, Ed agreed with this name
J So I think you can start formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list.
Because of name change, I drafted a new page for this,
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:OVIL, you can still use the old one
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Vpp for convenience.
From: Colin Dixon [mailto:colin@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:58 PM
To: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>
So, assuming the name is fixed, should we start a formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list?
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...> wrote:
Yi,
honeycomb/vbd is named that way :)
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Can a project name contain “/”? NetVirt is just one of its consumers, we can’t name it as “netvirt”.
Logically honeycombplugin is better, but obviously peope can’t think of vpp from such name
J
From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@...]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 10:50 PM
To: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
Cc: Colin Dixon <colin@...>; Robert Varga <nite@...>; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>;
project-proposals@...
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
Yang,
The thing is, its talking to honeycomb, which is talking to vpp, but could also talk to other things as well. My suggestion would be:
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Ed, can you propose a better name for it? How about vppplugin?
From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@...]
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 11:24 PM
To: Colin Dixon <colin@...>
Cc: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>; Robert Varga <nite@...>; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>;
project-proposals@...
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
Has the proposed project name and repo been changed to something other than 'vpp' ?
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:
The next APAC-friendly TSC call is scheduled for July 27th. If you're willing to wait until then, that call is at 11:30a Beijing time. Otherwise, we can have the creation review
happen over e-mail if it needs to be sooner. Changing the TSC schedule is... more complicated.
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 8:35 PM Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Thanks Colin, good summary, I discussed it with Tomas and Ed privately, I think they have well understood
why we need this project. it seems weekly TSC meeting time is Beijing Time 1:00 AM, can you schedule next meeting to Beijing Time 7:00 AM or 10:00 PM in order that I can join?
From: Colin Dixon [mailto:colin@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:35 PM
To: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
Cc: Robert Varga <nite@...>; Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>;
project-proposals@...
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
So, it sounds to me like the project proposal wanted to try to factor out the common elements of how SFC, NetVirt, and GBP would talk to VPP to do service chaining int one place
so that (a) the code could be shared and (b) we could reuse some of the work that GBP has done. However, the tone of this thread makes it pretty clear that (i) GBP isn't really interested in the shared code and (ii) is pretty opposed to the idea of their code
being used as the base even if it's a separate copy.
Give that, it seems like the right path forward is for SFC and NetVirt to decide if they still want to have a shared code bas for how they interact with VPP and if that should be
a new project.
I'll let that discussion keep going here and tentative schedule a creation review for next week—July 6th:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Hi, Robert
vpp data store isn't mirror of data store in honeycomb/vpp node, they are some intermediate data, vpp renderer and classifier will renderer them to real vpp data in honeycomb/vpp node, I'll work out a PoC to show you what it looks like.
we hope GBP guys can agree this, if you check Srikanthi's PoC and RPCs GBP vpp renderer provided, you can assume the vpp data store is just to save those parameters for those RPCs, for classifier, NetVirt defined its own classifier, GBP defined its own classifier,
SFC defined its own classifier, we hope they can have common classifier then augment it by itself, all the projects should use IETF ACLs and IETF interfaces, if so, the vpp data store can share these data in ODL.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Varga [mailto:nite@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 11:52 PM
To: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>; Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
Cc:
project-proposals@...
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
On 20/06/17 15:39, Ed Warnicke wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:25 AM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...
> <mailto:yi.y.yang@...>> wrote:
>
> For vpp renderer, it needs to render bridge domain information
> (neutron network, including VNI) and interfaces to bridge domain,
> vxlan, vxlan-gpe, vhostuser etc in vpp node, you know information
> model on ODL side is different from information model on VPP node
> side, especially for sfc, vpp renderer will also render RSP to
> bridge domain, vxlan-gpe, NSH entry and NSH map in every vpp node
> RSP spans. sfc vpp renderer is much more complicated than NetVirt
> needs, so we can use the existing code in sfc vpp renderer to
> achieve a vpp renderer NetVirt needs very easily.
>
>
>
> I'm still not clear on what models are being rendered to what models.
> The SFC renderer renders the SFC models to the models being mounted
> via netconf. It sounds like the *to* side of rendering is the models
> mounted via netconf. What precisely are the *from* models? Are we
> writing new models in this project for bridge domains, vxlan,
> vxlan-gpe, etc. It also sounds like you are taking a small fragment
> of the SFC model and creating a new model for a bunch of virtual
> bridging concepts (similar to what is done in VBD). Are there
> existing models being rendered to the netconf mounted models?
I tend to agree with Ed's point. I am probably missing something, as I am not too fluent in SFC/GBP information models nor how they align with NetVirt's view of the world.
I think we have multiple input models (SFC, netvirt, GBP) being rendered onto a target device (which happens to be VPP, but it's really about models).
What would be the models for "VPP data store"? Is this a mirror of the SB device's model and are we talking about the proposed project performing the equivalent of FRM?
I am sorry, but it is extremely hard to distill scope from the proposal in its current form. I think it needs to be beefed up with details of interactions and needs to be vetted by all of GBP, SFC and NetVirt to make sure the proposal actually fits the use
case.
Furthermore it would be very beneficial to understand how this plays with netconf topology -- as I mentioned "VPP node" is in reality any SB device implementing a specific set of models (either directly or through an adaptor).
Regards,
Robert
_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals
|
|
|
Re: A new project proposal vpp
Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
Ed, I’ll remove work GBP from wiki page to reflect your concern
J
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@...]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 1:56 AM
To: Anil Vishnoi <vishnoianil@...>
Cc: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>; project-proposals@...; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
That's a good point... Yi, how do you feel about Anil's suggestion?
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Anil Vishnoi <vishnoianil@...> wrote:
Just wondering, why do we want to reflect explictly who are going to be user of the project or not? i believe we never asked any projects to do anything like that before.
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...> wrote:
One other matter... I think the GBP folks have made clear they are not intending to be users of this new project, so its probably good to have the proposal reflect that.
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Yes, we have a new name OVIL (Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer) for it, Ed agreed with this name
J So I think you can start formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list.
Because of name change, I drafted a new page for this,
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:OVIL, you can still use the old one
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Vpp for convenience.
From: Colin Dixon [mailto:colin@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:58 PM
To: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>
Cc: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>; Robert Varga <nite@...>; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>;
project-proposals@...
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
So, assuming the name is fixed, should we start a formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list?
_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals
--
|
|
|
Re: A new project proposal vpp
Edward Warnicke
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote: OVIL sounds somewhat EVIL :)
Just curious: is "OpenDaylight VPP Interface Layer" too different from "VPP Plugin" proposed by Yi earlier? As a suggestion - if you want to avoid the evil sounding OVIL acronym, yet want to hide the name VPP inside an acronym perhaps you could go with the name OVP (an acronym for "OpenDaylight VPP Plugin").
|
|
|
Re: A new project proposal vpp
Also not sure why we need "Opendaylight" in the project name? But i don't have a strong object as such, i would defer it to project if they really want to have it in project name.
|
|
|
Re: A new project proposal vpp
OVIL sounds somewhat EVIL :)
Just curious: is "OpenDaylight VPP Interface Layer" too different from "VPP Plugin" proposed by Yi earlier? As a suggestion - if you want to avoid the evil sounding OVIL acronym, yet want to hide the name VPP inside an acronym perhaps you could go with the name OVP (an acronym for "OpenDaylight VPP Plugin").
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Yes, we have a new name OVIL (Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer) for it, Ed agreed with this name
J So I think you can start formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list.
Because of name change, I drafted a new page for this,
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:OVIL, you can still use the old one
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Vpp for convenience.
From: Colin Dixon [mailto:colin@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:58 PM
To: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>
So, assuming the name is fixed, should we start a formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list?
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...> wrote:
Yi,
honeycomb/vbd is named that way :)
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Can a project name contain “/”? NetVirt is just one of its consumers, we can’t name it as “netvirt”.
Logically honeycombplugin is better, but obviously peope can’t think of vpp from such name
J
From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@...]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 10:50 PM
To: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
Cc: Colin Dixon <colin@...>; Robert Varga <nite@...>; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>;
project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
Yang,
The thing is, its talking to honeycomb, which is talking to vpp, but could also talk to other things as well. My suggestion would be:
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Ed, can you propose a better name for it? How about vppplugin?
From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@...]
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 11:24 PM
To: Colin Dixon <colin@...>
Cc: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>; Robert Varga <nite@...>; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>;
project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
Has the proposed project name and repo been changed to something other than 'vpp' ?
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:
The next APAC-friendly TSC call is scheduled for July 27th. If you're willing to wait until then, that call is at 11:30a Beijing time. Otherwise, we can have the creation review
happen over e-mail if it needs to be sooner. Changing the TSC schedule is... more complicated.
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 8:35 PM Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Thanks Colin, good summary, I discussed it with Tomas and Ed privately, I think they have well understood
why we need this project. it seems weekly TSC meeting time is Beijing Time 1:00 AM, can you schedule next meeting to Beijing Time 7:00 AM or 10:00 PM in order that I can join?
From: Colin Dixon [mailto:colin@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:35 PM
To: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
Cc: Robert Varga <nite@...>; Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>;
project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
So, it sounds to me like the project proposal wanted to try to factor out the common elements of how SFC, NetVirt, and GBP would talk to VPP to do service chaining int one place
so that (a) the code could be shared and (b) we could reuse some of the work that GBP has done. However, the tone of this thread makes it pretty clear that (i) GBP isn't really interested in the shared code and (ii) is pretty opposed to the idea of their code
being used as the base even if it's a separate copy.
Give that, it seems like the right path forward is for SFC and NetVirt to decide if they still want to have a shared code bas for how they interact with VPP and if that should be
a new project.
I'll let that discussion keep going here and tentative schedule a creation review for next week—July 6th:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Hi, Robert
vpp data store isn't mirror of data store in honeycomb/vpp node, they are some intermediate data, vpp renderer and classifier will renderer them to real vpp data in honeycomb/vpp node, I'll work out a PoC to show you what it looks like.
we hope GBP guys can agree this, if you check Srikanthi's PoC and RPCs GBP vpp renderer provided, you can assume the vpp data store is just to save those parameters for those RPCs, for classifier, NetVirt defined its own classifier, GBP defined its own classifier,
SFC defined its own classifier, we hope they can have common classifier then augment it by itself, all the projects should use IETF ACLs and IETF interfaces, if so, the vpp data store can share these data in ODL.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Varga [mailto:nite@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 11:52 PM
To: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>; Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>
Cc:
project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
On 20/06/17 15:39, Ed Warnicke wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:25 AM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...
> <mailto:yi.y.yang@...>> wrote:
>
> For vpp renderer, it needs to render bridge domain information
> (neutron network, including VNI) and interfaces to bridge domain,
> vxlan, vxlan-gpe, vhostuser etc in vpp node, you know information
> model on ODL side is different from information model on VPP node
> side, especially for sfc, vpp renderer will also render RSP to
> bridge domain, vxlan-gpe, NSH entry and NSH map in every vpp node
> RSP spans. sfc vpp renderer is much more complicated than NetVirt
> needs, so we can use the existing code in sfc vpp renderer to
> achieve a vpp renderer NetVirt needs very easily.
>
>
>
> I'm still not clear on what models are being rendered to what models.
> The SFC renderer renders the SFC models to the models being mounted
> via netconf. It sounds like the *to* side of rendering is the models
> mounted via netconf. What precisely are the *from* models? Are we
> writing new models in this project for bridge domains, vxlan,
> vxlan-gpe, etc. It also sounds like you are taking a small fragment
> of the SFC model and creating a new model for a bunch of virtual
> bridging concepts (similar to what is done in VBD). Are there
> existing models being rendered to the netconf mounted models?
I tend to agree with Ed's point. I am probably missing something, as I am not too fluent in SFC/GBP information models nor how they align with NetVirt's view of the world.
I think we have multiple input models (SFC, netvirt, GBP) being rendered onto a target device (which happens to be VPP, but it's really about models).
What would be the models for "VPP data store"? Is this a mirror of the SB device's model and are we talking about the proposed project performing the equivalent of FRM?
I am sorry, but it is extremely hard to distill scope from the proposal in its current form. I think it needs to be beefed up with details of interactions and needs to be vetted by all of GBP, SFC and NetVirt to make sure the proposal actually fits the use
case.
Furthermore it would be very beneficial to understand how this plays with netconf topology -- as I mentioned "VPP node" is in reality any SB device implementing a specific set of models (either directly or through an adaptor).
Regards,
Robert
_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals
|
|
|
Re: A new project proposal vpp
Edward Warnicke
That's a good point... Yi, how do you feel about Anil's suggestion?
Ed
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Anil Vishnoi <vishnoianil@...> wrote: Just wondering, why do we want to reflect explictly who are going to be user of the project or not? i believe we never asked any projects to do anything like that before.
|
|
|
Re: A new project proposal vpp
Just wondering, why do we want to reflect explictly who are going to be user of the project or not? i believe we never asked any projects to do anything like that before.
|
|
|
Re: A new project proposal vpp
Edward Warnicke
One other matter... I think the GBP folks have made clear they are not intending to be users of this new project, so its probably good to have the proposal reflect that.
Ed
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...> wrote:
Yes, we have a new name OVIL (Opendaylight VPP Interface Layer) for it, Ed agreed with this name
J So I think you can start formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list.
Because of name change, I drafted a new page for this,
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:OVIL, you can still use the old one
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Vpp for convenience.
From: Colin Dixon [mailto:colin@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:58 PM
To: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>
Cc: Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.yang@...>; Robert Varga <nite@...>; Tomas Cechvala -X (tcechval - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <tcechval@...>; project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org
Subject: Re: [Project-proposals] A new project proposal vpp
So, assuming the name is fixed, should we start a formal creation review thread on the TSC mailing list?
|
|
|
