Networking-bgpvpn Scorecard

Neutron integration

  • N0. Does the project use the Neutron REST API or relies on proprietary backends?

    No. The project provides an API and Framework to interconnect BGP/MPLS VPNs to Openstack Neutron networks, routers and ports. It represents the server-side (plus its client-side mappings) to provide such a functionality. The server-side provides a driver-based mechanism to supply implementations of the API, which include an agent-based solution as available by the related project networking-bagpipe, as well as OpenDaylight and OpenContrail.

  • N1. Does the project integrate/use neutron-lib?

    Yes. So far the import ratio is ~15%. The neutron-lib periodic integration is available with periodic-networking-bgpvpn-py27-with-neutron-lib-master, though the switch to py35 has happened recently, so the project should switch too.

  • N2. Do project members actively contribute to help neutron-lib achieve its goal?

    No evidence of that.

  • N3. Do project members collaborate with the core team to enable subprojects to loosely integrate with the Neutron core platform by helping with the definition of modular interfaces?

    Team memembers have been particularly active in reviewing patches affecting the OVS pipeline.

  • N4. How does the project provide networking services? Does it use modular interfaces as provided by the core platform?

    The project adopts a service plugin model to plug into the API framework and provide driver extensions a la’ ML2 pattern. The decomposition between bgpvpn and bagpipe especially in relation to where the L2 agent extension is located may need some rethinking.

  • N5. If the project provides new API extensions, have API extensions been discussed and accepted by the Neutron drivers team? Please provide links to API specs, if required.

    No.

Documentation

  • D2. If the project provide API extensions, does the project have an api-ref tox target, functional and continously working? Provide proof (links to logs.openstack.org).

    No. There is some API documentation but it is not in the required format.

Continuous Integration

  • C4. Does the project have CI for fullstack coverage?

    No.

  • C6. How does a project validate upgrades on a continuous basis? Does the project require or support CI for Grenade coverage?

    No Grenade testing is available.

  • C7. Does the project provide multinode CI?

    No.

Release footprint

  • R1. Does the project adopt semver?

    Yes.

Stable backports

  • S1. Does the project have stable branches and/or tags? Provide history of backports.

    Yes. Stable liberty, mitaka and newton look aligned with Neutron’s

Client library

Scorecard

Scorecard
N0 | Y
N1 | Y
N2 | N
N3 | Y
N4 | Y
N5 | N
D1 | Y
D2 | N
D3 | Y
D4 | Y
C1 | N
C2 | Y
C3 | Y
C4 | N
C5 | Y
C6 | N
C7 | N
C8 | Y
R1 | Y
R2 | Y
R3 | Y
R4 | Y
S1 | Y
L1 N

Final remarks: There are some gaps that need attention most notably API documentation, client mappings and functional/scenario testing.

Table Of Contents

Previous topic

Networking-bagpipe Scorecard

Next topic

Networking-calico Scorecard

Project Source

This Page