Networking-sfc Scorecard

Neutron integration

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

    Networking-sfc implements its own set of Neutron API extensions on top of the Neutron core framework and it does so by using the service plugin model, The API exposed has open source implementations, and it provides a pluggable driver mechanism for multiple backends.

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

    Yes. It only imports ~10% of the neutron-related imports required. There is no periodic job to test against neutron-lib master changes.

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

    No, there is no tangible evidence.

  • 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 members helped review some of the L2 extensions related specs and patches.

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

    Yes, only recently the team managed to kill the OVS agent fork they were relying on.

  • 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.

    The project currently exposes two APIs: flow classification and Port chaining both via two separate service plugins. Minimal oversight on the latter was provided by the Neutron team at the project inception.

Documentation

  • D3. Does the project have a releasenotes tox target, functional and continously working? Provide proof.

    No.

Continuous Integration

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

    No.

  • C5. Does the project have CI for Tempest coverage? If so, specify nature (API and/or Scenario).

    API and Scenario. Non voting.

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

    No upgrade testing on a continuous basis.

  • 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.

    Liberty and Mitaka available. Backports are under the control of the neutron stable team. The subproject follows some release cadence that is not in sync with neutron, and this must be rectified, ASAP.

Client library

  • L1. If the project requires a client library, how does it implement CLI and API bindings?

    Yes. No OSC transition yet.

Scorecard

Scorecard
N0 | Y
N1 | N
N2 | N
N3 | Y
N4 | Y
N5 | N
D1 | Y
D2 | Y
D3 | N
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: the subproject has made great progress lately. There are still gaps to be filled, like lack of exhaustive coverage in the gate queue (current tempest test is non-voting), and aligning with master. Client side extensions will need to be rewritten in due course. However the subproject does not seem to lack the resources and the focus to make timely progress when required.

Table Of Contents

Previous topic

Networking-ovn Scorecard

Next topic

Neutron-dynamic-routing Scorecard

Project Source

This Page