[MidoNet] [MidoNet-dev] Admin Router vs. Provider Router

Abel Navarro abel at midokura.com
Mon Nov 10 09:45:41 UTC 2014


I think it was proposed the router formerly known as Provider Router to be
in the service tenant, not in the admin tenant. Having an Admin Router in
the service tenant can be confusing. What about Service Router?

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Jaume Devesa <devvesa at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 to use 'Admin Router'. As Pino said, a Provider Router feature already
> exists on Neutron and it means 'map the hardware router into neutron model'
> It's going to be difficult to us, because we have get used to this term,
> but let's do the effort! :)
>
> On 10 November 2014 09:58, Giuseppe (Pino) de Candia <
> gdecandia at midokura.com> wrote:
>
>> In Paris we were trying to evangelize our Provider Router Proposal for
>> Kilo. Some core contributors found the term "Provider Router" mis-leading
>> because they relate it to Provider Network and view the term "Provider" as
>> a hint that the device is managed outside OpenStack. Instead, our Provider
>> Router is an OpenStack/MidoNet virtual device that provides L3 networking
>> between Tenant Routers and between Tenant Routers and the Internet.
>>
>> I'm not asking for an immediate change in terminology, but I'd like us to
>> move towards the term "Admin Router". Does that make sense?
>>
>> --Pino
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MidoNet mailing list
>> MidoNet at lists.midonet.org
>> http://lists.midonet.org/listinfo/midonet
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jaume Devesa
> Software Engineer at Midokura
>
> _______________________________________________
> MidoNet-dev mailing list
> MidoNet-dev at lists.midonet.org
> http://lists.midonet.org/listinfo/midonet-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.midonet.org/pipermail/midonet/attachments/20141110/75dcf19d/attachment.html>


More information about the MidoNet mailing list