openstack team mailing list archive

["Ying Liu (yinliu2)" <yinliu2@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Alex.

 

I'd like to add few points. Our proposal is not intended to provide the
whole extension mechanism for Quantum Service. Instead, we are proposing
an extensible construct to Quantum core API.  Thus, we can have a
flexible and scalable way to describe the port's configurations.  For
example, the Port Profile includes a set of configurations. Thus,  Port
profile is defined once and it can be associated with multiple ports. If
we need to create 30 ports with the same configuration settings, we
don't need to do the same configurations 30 times. 

 

We agree with standard extension mechanism drafted by Jorge. With which,
we can extend attributes, actions, headers, resources and etc.
Considering our proposals, I think there are three options:

 

1.       We keep "Port Profile", the extensible construct for the port.
It's just for the configuration extension. All other extensions go
through the standard extension mechanism. The reason is that
configuration extension is just adding an attribute to the port. With
extensible "Port Profile", we can quickly add it. For the extended
<key>, we can require using vendor ID as the prefix. For example,
<NASA-newKey>.

 

2.       We keep the "Port Profile" construct associated with the port.
But, it only has fixed set of basic keys for common configurations. All
the extensions are handled by standard extension mechanism. With this
approach, we can still have scalable way to configure a large network.
Plus, we won't need extension unless we need some configuration beyond
that common configuration set. 

 

 

3.       In core API, only port id is associated with the port. (any
other basic attributes should associated with a port?). All the
extension are handled by extension mechanisms.  With this option, any
additional attribute/configuration request an extension.

 

We are fine with any of them and I can update wiki based on the
community's decision.

 

Best,

Ying

 

From: Alex Neefus [mailto:alex@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 1:05 PM
To: Ying Liu (yinliu2); openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Rick Clark
Subject: RE: [Openstack] [NetStack] Quantum Service API extension
proposal

 

Hi All - 

 

I wanted to lend support to this proposal, however I don't think we
should be so quick to say this whole thing is an extension.  

 

We benefit a lot from having a standard capabilities mechanism as part
of our core Quantum API. I like Ying's key value method as well. I think
it's logical, clean and scalable. I propose that basic read access of
"cap" off of our major objects: network, port, interface be included in
our first release. 

 

So in summary I would like to encourage us to add:

GET  /networks/{net_id}/conf

GET  /networks/{net_id}/ports/{port_id}/conf/

GET  {entity}/VIF/conf/

 

Each of these would return a list of keys.

 

Additionally Quantum base should support 

GET  /networks/{net_id}/conf/{key}

GET  /networks/{net_id}/ports/{port_id}/conf/{key}

GET  {entity}/VIF/conf/{key}

 

Where {key} is the name of either a standard capability or an extention
capability. We can define an error code now to designate a capability
not supported by the plugin. (i.e. 472 - CapNotSupported)

 

Finally we don't need to standardize on every capability that might be
supported if we provide this simple mechanism. Specific capabilities
Key,Value sets can be added later but or included as vendor specific
extensions.

 

I'm happy to add this to the wiki if there is consensus. Rick/Dan -
Maybe this should be a topic for Tuesdays meeting. 

 

Alex

 

---

Alex Neefus

Senior System Engineer | Mellanox Technologies

(o) 617.337.3116 | (m) 201.208.5771 | (f) 617.337.3019

 

 

 

 

 

From: openstack-bounces+alex=mellanox.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:openstack-bounces+alex=mellanox.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ying Liu (yinliu2)
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 1:10 PM
To: openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Openstack] [NetStack] Quantum Service API extension proposal

 

Hi all,

 

We just posted a proposal for OpenStack Quantum Service API extension on
community wiki page at
http://wiki.openstack.org/QuantumAPIExtensions?action=AttachFile&do=view
&target=quantum_api_extension.pdf

or 

http://wiki.openstack.org/QuantumAPIExtensions?action=AttachFile&do=view
&target=quantum_api_extension.docx

 

Please review and let us know your comments/suggestions. An etherpad
page is created for API extension discussion
http://etherpad.openstack.org/uWXwqQNU4s

 

Best,

Ying