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

Jaume Devesa devvesa at gmail.com
Mon Nov 10 11:26:22 UTC 2014


We are leaning towards "Network Service Admin Router"!

I would say that if we want this router be created explicitly should belong
to the admin tenant.

I associate service tenant entities (or no tenant entites) that something
is created implicitly and
behind the scenes.

For instance, VRRP protocol that provides L3 HA in OpenVSwitch plugin uses
a no tenant network
to send keep alive messages between SNAT routers.

For instance 2: we created this Provider Router in our topology implicitly
to map between external
network topology and ours.

Once I, as a Neutron user, create a virtual device, I expect this device
belong to me.


On 10 November 2014 11:56, Samir Ibradžić <samir at midokura.com> wrote:

> +1 for Service Router, or "Network Service(s) Router" ;)
>
> On 2014年11月10日 18:57, Giuseppe (Pino) de Candia wrote:
> > -1 for "Service Router" I just don't like the sound of it :-)
> >
> > But thanks for raising this point. Ryu, Jaume, and other Neutron
> > integration folks, can you elaborate on what tenant the Provider Router
> > will belong to? How certain are these plans?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Pino
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Abel Navarro <abel at midokura.com
> > <mailto:abel at midokura.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     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
> >     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:
> MidoNet-dev at lists.midonet.org>
> >         http://lists.midonet.org/listinfo/midonet-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MidoNet mailing list
> > MidoNet at lists.midonet.org
> > http://lists.midonet.org/listinfo/midonet
> >
> _______________________________________________
> MidoNet mailing list
> MidoNet at lists.midonet.org
> http://lists.midonet.org/listinfo/midonet
>



-- 
Jaume Devesa
Software Engineer at Midokura
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.midonet.org/pipermail/midonet/attachments/20141110/515622c1/attachment.html>


More information about the MidoNet mailing list