[MidoNet] Admin Router vs. Provider Router

Alexander Gabert alexander at midokura.com
Mon Nov 10 18:34:04 UTC 2014


Hello, the following names work for me:

distributed virtual edge router (because that is what it is, yet could be
confused with DVR name)
edge router (less cool but still works)
virtual edge router (has a cool name also, and less likely to be confused
with DVR)
uplink/upstream/WAN router (may be confusing)
virtual edge gateway (minimalistic approach, resembles the fact that we
actually do L2 and L3)
distributed virtual edge gateway (may be too much as a four-letter acronym
but at least it shows what we do)

please do not use words like 'admin' or 'service' because that implies a
(not user visible) back-office job description for the component.

thx alex


On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:58 AM, 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
>
>


-- 
Midokura

235 Montgomery Street
San Francisco
CA 94104
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.midonet.org/pipermail/midonet/attachments/20141110/08888694/attachment.html>


More information about the MidoNet mailing list