Revision as of 17:40, 27 September 2016

Contributors

• Cathy Zhang
• Louis Fourie
• Miguel Ángel
• Igor Duarte Cardoso

IRC Discussion Meeting Information

Every two weeks (on odd weeks) on Tuesday at 1700 UTC in #openstack-meeting

Austin Summit Etherpad Discussion Notes

https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Neutron-FC-OVSAgentExt-Austin-Summit

Meetings

Previous Meeting Logs

http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/network_common_flow_classifier/

Discussion Topic 11 October 2016

Feel free to add.

Discussion Topic 27 September 2016

Classification Framework

• Can we converge on a first approach (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/333993)?
• Next steps on the common classifier
• Repo: new repo or neutron-classifier repo?
• Barcelona Summit arrangements

OVS Flow Management

• Status of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/320439/
• Barcelona Summit arrangements

Open discussion

Discussion Topic 5 July 2016

• General spec discussion: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/333993

Discussion Topic 14 June 2016

• Bug Status: developed as a RFE over neutron-core? https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1476527 and https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1583299
• Typed Classifications proposal as superset of original FC (https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1476527/comments/26)
• Spec on Common Flow Classifier
• POC code for Flow Manager: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/323963/

Discussion Topic 17 May 2016

• Develop this as a bug fix in Neutron or separate stadium project
• Use existing QoS bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1527671 or creating a new one
• Discussion on the comparison table
• API design Spec

Overview

Multiple Stadium features inside Neutron need flow classifier functionality. Instead of each feature creating its own FC API, we should have one common FC API that can be used by all the features. Currently the features that need FC are: Tap as a service, SFC, QoS, Security Group, FW, BGP/VPN. Following are some general guielines on the FC API specification: ---Common FC API should not cause a major change of existing FC API used by the features, and should be a superset of existing FC rules used by existing features ---We should come up with one consistent way of defining the API and classification rules, and then associate the FC with each feature.

Currently only networking-sfc and security group have defined and implemented the FC API.

1. First step is to identify the gap between the security group FC API and the networking-sfc FC API. Following is the comparison table and the gap. It seems the SFC FC is superset of security group FC.

2. Second step is to consolidate the two FC into one. Two options: 1) evolve the SFC FC to be the common FC for Tap as a service, SFC, QoS, Security Group, FW, BGP/VPN, 2) evolve the SFC FC to be the common FC for Tap as a service, SFC, QoS, FW, BGP/VPN, but keep the security group separate.

3. Write a spec on the consolidated FC and get it reviewed and consensus reached.