Hi Carlos,
> On May 9, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Eugene Nikanorov <enikano...@mirantis.com> > wrote: > > Also we've heard objection to this approach several times from other core > team members (this discussion has been going for more than half a year > now), so I would suggest to move forward with single L2 port approach. > > > Objections to multiple ports per loadbalancer or objections to the > Loadbalancer object itself? > > If its the latter then you may have a valid argument by authority > but its impossible to verify because these "core team members" are > remaining silent through out all these discussions. We can't be dissuaded > due to FUD(Fear, Uncertainty and Doub)t that these silent core team > members will suddenly reject this discussion in the future. We aren't going > to put our users at risk due to FUD. > I think you had a chance to hear this argument yourself (from several different core members: Mark McClain, Salvatore Orlando, Kyle Mestery) on those meetings we had in past 2 months. I was advocating 'loadbalancer' (in it's extended version) once too, receiving negative opinions as well. In general this approach puts too much of control of a backend to user's hands and this goes in opposite direction than neutron project. If it's just about the name of the root object - VIP suits this role too, so I'm fine with that. I also find VIP/Listeners model a bit more clearer per definitions in our glossary. Thanks, Eugene.
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev