As said I am not disagreeing with you or Ravi or JC. I also agree that Openstack VPC implementation will benefit from these proposals. What I am saying is it is not required AWS VPC API compatibility at this point. Which is what our blueprint is all about. We are not defining THE "VPC". Let me ask you what changes in AWS API when you go to other model? The argument is you want multiple projects in VPC. That's great. But I don't understand how I would specify it if my code was written to use AWS API. The argument you want multiple external networks per VPC I don't know how to specify using AWS API So list goes on.
May be I am missing something. If you don't want AWS compatibility then that's different issue all together. And should be discussed as such. Regards -Harshad > On Feb 16, 2014, at 9:51 AM, "Allamaraju, Subbu" <su...@subbu.org> wrote: > > Harshad, > > But the key question that Ravi brought up remains though. A project is a very > small administrative container to manage policies and resources for VPCs. > We've been experimenting with VPCs on OpenStack (with some mods) at work for > nearly a year, and came across cases where hundreds/thousands of apps in > equal number of projects needing to share resources and policies, and project > to VPC mapping did not cut. > > I was wondering if there was prior discussion around the mapping of AWS VPC > model to OpenStack concepts like projects and domains. Thanks for any > pointers. > > Subbu > >> On Feb 16, 2014, at 8:01 AM, Harshad Nakil <hna...@contrailsystems.com> >> wrote: >> >> Yes, [1] can be done without [2] and [3]. >> As you are well aware [2] is now merged with group policy discussions. >> IMHO all or nothing approach will not get us anywhere. >> By the time we line up all our ducks in row. New features/ideas/blueprints >> will keep Emerging. >> >> Regards >> -Harshad >> >> >>> On Feb 16, 2014, at 2:30 AM, Salvatore Orlando <sorla...@nicira.com> wrote: >>> >>> It seems this work item is made of several blueprints, some of which are >>> not yet approved. This is true at least for the Neutron blueprint regarding >>> policy extensions. >>> >>> Since I first looked at this spec I've been wondering why nova has been >>> selected as an endpoint for network operations rather than Neutron, but >>> this probably a design/implementation details whereas JC here is looking at >>> the general approach. >>> >>> Nevertheless, my only point here is that is seems that features like this >>> need an "all-or-none" approval. >>> For instance, could the VPC feature be considered functional if blueprint >>> [1] is implemented, but not [2] and [3]? >>> >>> Salvatore >>> >>> [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/aws-vpc-support >>> [2] >>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/policy-extensions-for-neutron >>> [3] >>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/hierarchical-multitenancy >>> >>> >>> On 11 February 2014 21:45, Martin, JC <jch.mar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Ravi, >>> >>> It seems that the following Blueprint >>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprint-aws-vpc-support >>> >>> has been approved. >>> >>> However, I cannot find a discussion with regard to the merit of using >>> project vs. domain, or other mechanism for the implementation. >>> >>> I have an issue with this approach as it prevents tenants within the same >>> domain sharing the same VPC to have projects. >>> >>> As an example, if you are a large organization on AWS, it is likely that >>> you have a large VPC that will be shred by multiple projects. With this >>> proposal, we loose that capability, unless I missed something. >>> >>> JC >>> >>>> On Dec 19, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Ravi Chunduru <ravi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> We had some internal discussions on role of Domain and VPCs. I would like >>>> to expand and understand community thinking of Keystone domain and VPCs. >>>> >>>> Is VPC equivalent to Keystone Domain? >>>> >>>> If so, as a public cloud provider - I create a Keystone domain and give it >>>> to an organization which wants a virtual private cloud. >>>> >>>> Now the question is if that organization wants to have departments wise >>>> allocation of resources it is becoming difficult to visualize with >>>> existing v3 keystone constructs. >>>> >>>> Currently, it looks like each department of an organization cannot have >>>> their own resource management with in the organization VPC ( LDAP based >>>> user management, network management or dedicating computes etc.,) For us, >>>> Openstack Project does not match the requirements of a department of an >>>> organization. >>>> >>>> I hope you guessed what we wanted - Domain must have VPCs and VPC to have >>>> projects. >>>> >>>> I would like to know how community see the VPC model in Openstack. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -Ravi. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
