Here are tables for tracking the status of the specs related to ML2 in Juno: --Banix (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The guideline for updating this wiki is at the end of this page.
Under Review
Title
|
Spec/BP
|
Owner
|
Priority
|
Status
|
R1
|
R2
|
R3
|
R4
|
c1
|
c2
|
c3
|
Add spec for ML2 mechanism driver for SDN-VE |
spec |
banix |
3 (Low) |
WIP |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-
|
VDP support in OVS Neutron Agent |
spec |
nlahouti |
3 (Low) |
Review |
yamamoto +1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-
|
ML2 Type drivers refactor to allow extensiblity |
spec |
asomya |
3 (Low) |
Review |
Sukhdev |
yamamoto |
shivharis |
banix |
rkukura |
- |
-
|
physical-network-topology extension spec |
spec |
yamahata |
3 (Low) |
Review |
Sukhdev |
yamamoto |
asomya |
banix |
- |
- |
-
|
GW API: L2 bridging API - Piece 1: Basic use cases |
spec |
racha-ben-ali |
3 (Low) |
Review |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-
|
Neutron QoS API Extension |
spec |
sc68cal |
3 (Low) |
Review |
irenab |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-
|
Allow partial specification of Provider Network attributes |
spec |
zzelle |
3 (Low) |
Review |
Sukhdev |
- |
- |
- |
rkukura |
- |
-
|
Open vSwitch-based Security Groups: OVS FirewallDriver |
spec |
asadoughi |
3 (Low) |
Review |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-
|
Support for extensions in ML2 Mechanism Drivers |
spec BP |
nlahouti |
3 (Low) |
Review |
banix |
shivharis |
mrohon |
yamamato |
rkukura -1 |
mestery -2 |
-
|
Neutron External Ports |
spec BP |
kevinbenton |
3 (Low) |
Review |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-
|
VLAN aware VMs |
spec |
Erik Moe |
3 (Low) |
Review |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-
|
ML2 mechanism driver for Cisco UCS Manager |
spec BP |
sadasu |
3 (Low) |
Review |
Sukhdev |
irenab |
- |
- |
rkukura |
SumitN |
-
|
ofagent l2pop support |
spec |
yamamoto |
3 (Low) |
Blocked |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-
|
ofagent: port monitoring w/o ovsdb accesses |
spec |
yamamoto |
3 (Low) |
Review |
banix |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-
|
Arista L3 Router Service Plugin |
spec |
sukhdev |
3 (Low) |
Review |
banix |
- |
- |
- |
mestery |
- |
-
|
Linuxbridge QoS Support |
spec |
oda-g |
3 (Low) |
Review |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-
|
Provider Segment Support for Cisco Nexus Switches |
spec |
rcurran |
3 (Low) |
Review |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-
|
Layer 3 Service Plugin for Cisco Nexus Switches |
spec |
rcurran |
3 (Low) |
Review |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-
|
ML2 Cisco Nexus Mechanism Driver VxLAN Gateway Support |
spec |
rcurran |
3 (Low) |
Review |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-
|
Merged
Title |
Spec/BP |
Owner |
Status
|
ML2 Mechanism Driver for Cisco DFA |
spec |
nlahouti |
Merged
|
ML2 Mechanism Driver for the Cisco APIC |
spec |
HenryG |
Merged
|
ML2 Mechanism Driver for SR-IOV NIC switching |
spec |
irenab |
Merged
|
Neutron OVS based Distributed Virtual Router |
spec |
swami |
Merged
|
L3 router Service plugin for the Cisco APIC |
spec |
asomya |
Merged
|
Freescale SDN Mechanism Driver |
spec |
trinaths |
Merged
|
Planned
Title |
Spec/BP |
Owner |
Comment
|
ML2 Hierarchical Port Binding |
|
rkukura |
Under development
|
Modular L2 Agent |
|
banix |
Under development
|
ofagent: sub driver |
BP |
yamamoto |
probably some overlap with modular l2 agent
|
Guide
- For an spec, the owner is responsible for keeping this table up to date
- A reviewer can add her name to the table when she reviews a spec but ultimately the spec owner needs to make sure the information is up to date
- Priority
- Use the following strings for priority: "1 (High)", "2 (Med)", "3 (Low)" so we can easily sort the table based on the priority if need be
- If not sure, insert the spec with priority set to 3 (Low)
- The priority of specs were decided to be defined as follows (IRC Log):
- So mestery suggests vendor-specific drivers should be at low priority, consistent with vendor plugins and vendor service drivers
- The ML2 team can identify 2 or 3 BPs to treat as high priority
- These need to be of general community interest, and really important to complete for Juno
- And we can identify several more BPs to treat as medium priority, which also should be of general community interest
Other Considerations
- Should we do the same for regular (not specs) neutron reviews?