Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

steady > interface to do improvement step by step. > > Best Regards > Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) > > > From: Flavio Percoco [fla...@redhat.com] > Sent: 05 September 2016 20:52 > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

nt Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs On 05/09/16 18:55 +0700, Ian Wells wrote: >On 5 September 2016 at 17:08, Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> We should probably start

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2016-09-05 12:08:04 +0200: > On 02/09/16 10:56 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: > >Excerpts from Ken Giusti's message of 2016-09-02 11:05:51 -0400: > >> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Ian Wells wrote: > >> > On 1 September 2016 at 06:52,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs

: discovery-...@inria.fr Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs Hello, Adrien, How about different focus for different working gruop? For example, "massively distributed" working group can focus on identifying the use cases,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On Mon, 5 Sep 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote: A full rewrite of the library that doesn't take under consideration the existing deployed technologies is not going to be of any help, IMHO. The reason being that upgradability would be broken and that's a no-go. I believe Clynt was trying to make the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On 05/09/16 18:55 +0700, Ian Wells wrote: On 5 September 2016 at 17:08, Flavio Percoco wrote: We should probably start by asking ourselves who's really being bitten by the messaging bus right now? Large (and please, let's not bikeshed on what a Large Cloud is) Clouds? Small

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On 5 September 2016 at 17:08, Flavio Percoco wrote: > We should probably start by asking ourselves who's really being bitten by > the > messaging bus right now? Large (and please, let's not bikeshed on what a > Large > Cloud is) Clouds? Small Clouds? New Clouds? Everyone? >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On 02/09/16 10:56 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Ken Giusti's message of 2016-09-02 11:05:51 -0400: On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Ian Wells wrote: > On 1 September 2016 at 06:52, Ken Giusti wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Ian

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

Excerpts from Ken Giusti's message of 2016-09-02 11:05:51 -0400: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Ian Wells wrote: > > On 1 September 2016 at 06:52, Ken Giusti wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Ian Wells wrote:

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Ian Wells wrote: > On 1 September 2016 at 06:52, Ken Giusti wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Ian Wells wrote: > >> > I have opinions about other patterns we could use, but I don't

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

gt; > À: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Envoyé: Jeudi 1 Septembre 2016 11:18:17 > Objet: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively > distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On 1 September 2016 at 06:52, Ken Giusti wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Ian Wells wrote: > > > I have opinions about other patterns we could use, but I don't want to push > > my solutions here, I want to see if this is really as much of a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

This topic of oslo messaging issues has been going on for a long time and the main issue is not the transport itself (each transport has its own limitations) but the code using oslo messaging (e.g. pieces of almost every openstack service). It is relatively easy to write code using oslo

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Ian Wells wrote: > On 31 August 2016 at 10:12, Clint Byrum wrote: >> >> Excerpts from Duncan Thomas's message of 2016-08-31 12:42:23 +0300: >> > On 31 August 2016 at 11:57, Bogdan Dobrelya >> >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On 31 August 2016 at 22:30, Ian Wells wrote: > On 31 August 2016 at 10:12, Clint Byrum wrote: > >> Excerpts from Duncan Thomas's message of 2016-08-31 12:42:23 +0300: >> > Is there a writeup anywhere on what these issues are? I've heard this >> >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Ian Wells's message of 2016-08-31 12:30:45 -0700: >> On 31 August 2016 at 10:12, Clint Byrum wrote: >> >> > Excerpts from Duncan Thomas's message of 2016-08-31 12:42:23 +0300: >> > > On 31

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

urrent application of > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338796/. > > > > TricircleGateway: Dedicated to provide API gateway for those who need > > single Nova/Cinder API endpoint in multi-region OpenStack deployment, > > run without or with TricircleNetworking. Live as non

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Envoyé: Jeudi 1 Septembre 2016 11:18:17 > Objet: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively > distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs > > > What is the REST API for tricircle

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

Clint Byrum wrote: > [...] > I think it's about time we get some Architecture WG meetings started, > and put "Document RPC design" on the agenda. +1 Anything blocking you ? Let me know where/if I can help. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

dy supported in Nova/Cinder/Neutron? This is a question. Best Regards Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) From: Joshua Harlow [harlo...@fastmail.com] Sent: 01 September 2016 12:17 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

joehuang wrote: I just pointed out the issues for RPC which is used between API cell and child cell if we deploy child cells in edge clouds. For this thread is about massively distributed cloud, so the RPC issues inside current Nova/Cinder/Neutron are not the main focus(it could be another

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

) From: lebre.adr...@free.fr [lebre.adr...@free.fr] Sent: 01 September 2016 1:36 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs As promised, I just wrote

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

September 2016 2:03 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs On 31 August 2016 at 18:54, Joshua Harlow <harlo...@fastmail.com<mailto:harlo...@fastmail.com>> wr

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 03:08 +, joehuang wrote: > Hello, Jay, > > Sorry, I don't know why my mail-agent(Microsoft Outlook Web App) did > not carry the thread message-id information in the reply. I'll check > and avoid to create a new thread for reply in existing thread. It's a common

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

Excerpts from Ian Wells's message of 2016-08-31 12:30:45 -0700: > On 31 August 2016 at 10:12, Clint Byrum wrote: > > > Excerpts from Duncan Thomas's message of 2016-08-31 12:42:23 +0300: > > > On 31 August 2016 at 11:57, Bogdan Dobrelya > > wrote: > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On 31 August 2016 at 10:12, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Duncan Thomas's message of 2016-08-31 12:42:23 +0300: > > On 31 August 2016 at 11:57, Bogdan Dobrelya > wrote: > > > > > I agree that RPC design pattern, as it is implemented now, is a major

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On 31 August 2016 at 18:54, Joshua Harlow wrote: > Duncan Thomas wrote: > >> On 31 August 2016 at 11:57, Bogdan Dobrelya > > wrote: >> >> I agree that RPC design pattern, as it is implemented now, is a major >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

joehuang" <joehu...@huawei.com> > À: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Envoyé: Mercredi 31 Août 2016 08:48:01 > Objet: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively > distributed][architecture]C

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

Excerpts from Duncan Thomas's message of 2016-08-31 12:42:23 +0300: > On 31 August 2016 at 11:57, Bogdan Dobrelya wrote: > > > I agree that RPC design pattern, as it is implemented now, is a major > > blocker for OpenStack in general. It requires a major redesign, > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

Duncan Thomas wrote: On 31 August 2016 at 11:57, Bogdan Dobrelya > wrote: I agree that RPC design pattern, as it is implemented now, is a major blocker for OpenStack in general. It requires a major redesign, including handling

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On 31 August 2016 at 11:57, Bogdan Dobrelya wrote: > I agree that RPC design pattern, as it is implemented now, is a major > blocker for OpenStack in general. It requires a major redesign, > including handling of corner cases, on both sides, *especially* RPC call >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On 08/31/2016 01:57 AM, Bogdan Dobrelya wrote: I agree that RPC design pattern, as it is implemented now, is a major blocker for OpenStack in general. It requires a major redesign, including handling of corner cases, on both sides, *especially* RPC call clients. Or may be it just have to be

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

> Best Regards > Chaoyi Huang(joehuang) > > > From: Andrew Laski [and...@lascii.com] > Sent: 30 August 2016 21:03 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively > distributed][architecture]Coo

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

om: Joshua Harlow [harlo...@fastmail.com] Sent: 31 August 2016 13:13 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs joehuang wrote: > Cells is a good enhancement for Nov

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

joehuang wrote: Cells is a good enhancement for Nova scalability, but there are some issues in deployment Cells for massively distributed edge clouds: 1) using RPC for inter-data center communication will bring the difficulty in inter-dc troubleshooting and maintenance, and some critical

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

[2] https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01320235 > > - Mail original - > > De: "Peter Willis" <p3t3rw11...@gmail.com> > > À: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> &

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

> > I don't want to give to many details in the present mail in order > > > to stay > > > as consice as possible (details will be given in the proposal). > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Adrien > > > > > > [1] https://youtu.b

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

- Mail original - > De: "Andrew Laski" <and...@lascii.com> > À: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Envoyé: Mardi 30 Août 2016 15:03:35 > Objet: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively > distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs > > &

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

- Mail original - > > De: "Peter Willis" <p3t3rw11...@gmail.com> > > À: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > > Envoyé: Mardi 30 Août 2016 11:24:00 > > Objet: Re: [open

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

lebre.adr...@free.fr wrote: > [...] > According to the different replies, I think we should enlarge the discussion > and not stay on the vCPE use-case, which is clearly specific and represents > only one use-case among the ones we would like to study. For instance we are > in touch with NRENs

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

estions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Envoyé: Mardi 30 Août 2016 11:24:00 > Objet: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively > distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs > > > > Colleagues, > > > An interesting discussion, the only questi

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

___ > From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com] > Sent: 29 August 2016 18:48 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively > distributed][architecture]Coordination > between actions/WGs > > On 08/27/2016

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

enstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs On 08/27/2016 11:16 AM, HU, BIN wrote: > The challenge in OpenStack is how to enable the innovation built on top of > OpenStack. No, that's not the challenge for OpenStack. Tha

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

) From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com] Sent: 29 August 2016 18:34 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs On 08/28/2016 09:02 PM, joehuang wrote: > Hello, Bin, > > Understand your ex

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

From a brief look, it seems like vCPE is more along the lines of the customer having a "thin" device on their premise and their (now virtual) network functions, eg. firewall, live in the providers data center over a private link created by that thin device. So having a hypervisor on a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote: > Curtis wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 1:27 PM, gordon chung wrote: >>> >>> just to clarify, what 'innovation' do you believe is required to enable >>> you >>> to build on top of OpenStack. what are

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

Curtis wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 1:27 PM, gordon chung wrote: just to clarify, what 'innovation' do you believe is required to enable you to build on top of OpenStack. what are the feature gaps you are proposing? let's avoid defining "the cloud" since that will give you 1000

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

> On 29/08/16 12:23 PM, HU, BIN wrote: > > Please see inline [BH526R]. > > -Original Message- > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 3:48 AM > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massiv

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

lt;mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs On 08/27/2016 11:16 AM, HU, BIN wrote: The challenge in OpenStack is how to enable the innovation built on top of OpenStack. No, that's not the challenge f

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

Please see inline [BH526R]. -Original Message- From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 3:48 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs On 08/27/2016

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs

On 24/08/16 20:37, Jay Pipes wrote: On 08/24/2016 04:26 AM, Peter Willis wrote: Colleagues, I'd like to confirm that scalability and multi-site operations are key to BT's NFV use cases e.g. vCPE, vCDN, vEPC, vIMS, MEC, IoT, where we will have compute highly distributed around the network (from

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

, August 27, 2016 10:49 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs On Aug 27, 2016, at 12:18 PM, HU, BIN <bh5...@att

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On 08/28/2016 09:02 PM, joehuang wrote: Hello, Bin, Understand your expectation. In Tricircle big-tent application: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338796/, a proposal was also given to add plugin mechnism in Nova/Cinder API layer, just like Neutron support plugin mechanism in API layer,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

) From: HU, BIN [bh5...@att.com] Sent: 28 August 2016 2:16 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev][all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs The challenge in OpenStack is how

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs On Aug 27, 2016, at 12:18 PM, HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com> wrote: >> From

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On Aug 27, 2016, at 12:18 PM, HU, BIN wrote: >> From telco perspective, those are the areas that allow innovation, and >> provide telco customers with new types of services. > > We need innovation, starting from not limiting ourselves from bringing new > idea and new use

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

27, 2016 2:47 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs On 08/25/2016 06:38 PM, joehuang wrote: > Hello, Ed, > > Just as Peter mentioned, "BT's NFV use cases e.g. vCPE, vCDN, vEP

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs

LOL Thierry! On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Jay Pipes wrote: >> [...] >> However, I have not heard vCPE described in that way. v[E]CPE is all >> about enabling a different kind of application delivery for Telco >> products/services. Instead of

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs

Jay Pipes wrote: > [...] > However, I have not heard vCPE described in that way. v[E]CPE is all > about enabling a different kind of application delivery for Telco > products/services. Instead of sending the customer new hardware -- or > installing a giant monolith application with feature toggles

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

lem domains to tackle. Best, -jay Best Regards Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) From: Ed Leafe [e...@leafe.com] Sent: 25 August 2016 22:03 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs

On 08/25/2016 11:08 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Jay Pipes wrote: [...] How is vCPE a *cloud* use case? From what I understand, the v[E]CPE use case is essentially that Telcos want to have the set-top boxen/routers that are running cable television apps (i.e. AT U-verse or Verizon FiOS-like

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs On Aug 24, 2016, at 8:42 PM, joehuang <joehu...@huawei.com> wrote: > > Funny point of view. Let's look at the mission of OpenSta

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs

lebre.adr...@free.fr wrote: > [...] > The goal of this email is to : > > (i) understand whether the fog/edge computing use case is in the scope of > the Architecture WG. > > (ii) if not, whether it makes sense to create a working group that focus > on scalability and multi-site

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs

Jay Pipes wrote: > [...] > How is vCPE a *cloud* use case? > > From what I understand, the v[E]CPE use case is essentially that Telcos > want to have the set-top boxen/routers that are running cable television > apps (i.e. AT U-verse or Verizon FiOS-like things for US-based > customers) and home

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs

On Aug 24, 2016, at 8:42 PM, joehuang wrote: > > Funny point of view. Let's look at the mission of OpenStack: > > "to produce the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform that enables > building interoperable public and private clouds regardless of size, by being >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs

egards Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com] Sent: 25 August 2016 8:37 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs On 0

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs

On 08/24/2016 04:26 AM, Peter Willis wrote: Colleagues, I'd like to confirm that scalability and multi-site operations are key to BT's NFV use cases e.g. vCPE, vCDN, vEPC, vIMS, MEC, IoT, where we will have compute highly distributed around the network (from thousands to millions of sites). BT

[openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs

Colleagues, I'd like to confirm that scalability and multi-site operations are key to BT's NFV use cases e.g. vCPE, vCDN, vEPC, vIMS, MEC, IoT, where we will have compute highly distributed around the network (from thousands to millions of sites). BT would therefore support a Massively

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs

OpenStack Development Mailing List; openstack-operators Cc: discovery-...@inria.fr Subject: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs Hi Folks, During the last summit, we suggested to create a new working group that deals with the massively

[openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs

Hi Folks, During the last summit, we suggested to create a new working group that deals with the massively distributed use case: How can OpenStack be "slightly" revised to operate Fog/Edge Computing infrastructures, i.e. infrastructures composed of several sites. The first meeting we did in