On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:09:01PM +0000, Sandy Walsh wrote: > From: Ewan Mellor [ewan.mel...@eu.citrix.com] > > To your point about the boundary of preservation of ID, that's a good > > question. If you ignore the security / trust issues, then the obvious > > answer is that IDs should be globally, infinitely, permanently unique. > > That's what UUIDs are for. We can generate these randomly without any need > > for a central authority, and with no fear of collisions. It would > > certainly be nice if my VM can leave my SoftLayer DC and arrive in my > > Rackspace DC and when it comes back I still know that it's the same VM. > > That's the OpenStack dream, right? > > Hmm, I may have been swayed against UNC. Routing and caching can still be > layered on a UUID without having to parse it.
"If you ignore the security / trust issues..." but we can't ignore them, so UUIDs alone are sufficient. Do we want this namespace per zone, deployment, resource owner, or some other dimension? I see the cases against per-zone with RHEL licensing, but pvo does give an acceptable workaround. Besides that, I guess I don't see the value in permanent instances. Tools, billing, etc. should work with a changing working set. Having said that, I'd be ok with any of those as namespace boundaries (although auth/owner gets nasty with federation), as long as we have *something*. -Eric _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
