Yup, can do! :)
-jay
On 10/27/2014 01:55 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote:
Hi Jay,
Let’s add that as an agenda item at our Weekly IRC meeting. Can you make
this timeslot?
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Octavia#Meetings
Thanks,
Doug
On 10/27/14, 11:27 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry for top-posting, but where can the API working group see the
proposed Octavia API specification or documentation? I'd love it if the
API WG could be involved in reviewing the public REST API.
Best,
-jay
On 10/27/2014 10:01 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Doug Wiegley <do...@a10networks.com>
wrote:
Hi Brandon,
4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to
discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the
harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit,
and more thoroughly after the summit.
I agree with this sentiment. I’d just like to pull-up to the decision
level, and if we can get some consensus on how we move forward, we can
bring a concrete plan to the summit instead of 40 minutes of Kumbaya.
We
love each other. Check. Things are going to change sometime. Check.
We
might spin-out someday. Check. Now, let’s jump to the interesting
part.
I think we all know we want to spin these out, as Doug says we just
need to have a plan around how we make that happen. I'm in agreement
with Doug's sentiment above.
3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the
scope
for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs
from
the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that
There is merit here, but consider the sorts of things that an advanced
services framework should be doing:
- plugging into neutron ports, with all manner of topologies
- service VM handling
- plugging into nova-network
- service chaining
- applying things like security groups to services
… this is all stuff that Octavia is talking about implementing itself
in a
basically defensive manner, instead of leveraging other work. And
there
are specific reasons for that. But, maybe we can at least take steps
to
not be incompatible about it. Or maybe there is a hierarchy of
Neutron ->
Services -> LB, where we’re still spun out, but not doing it in a way
that
we have to re-implement the world all the time. It’s at least worth a
conversation or three.
Doug, can you document this on the etherpad for the "services spinout"
[1]? I've added some brief text at the top on what the objective for
this session is, but documenting more along the lines of what you have
here would be good.
Thanks,
Kyle
[1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-services
Thanks,
Doug
On 10/26/14, 6:35 PM, "Brandon Logan" <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com>
wrote:
Good questions Doug. My answers are as follows:
1. Yes
2. Some time after Kilo (same as I don't know when)
3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the
scope
for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs
from
the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that
repeating itself within an advanced services project. More and more
"advanced services" will get added in and the scope will become too
large. There would definitely be benefits to it though, but I think
we
would end up being right where we are today.
4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to
discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the
harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit,
and more thoroughly after the summit.
Yes the brunt of the time will not be spent on the API, but since it
seemed like an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, I figured
it warranted a discussion.
Thanks,
Brandon
On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:15 +0000, Doug Wiegley wrote:
Hi all,
Before we get into the details of which API goes where, I’d like to
see
us
answer the questions of:
1. Are we spinning out?
2. When?
3. With or without the rest of advanced services?
4. Do we want to wait until we (the royal “we” of “the Neutron team”)
have
had the Paris summit discussions on vendor split-out and adv.
services
spinout before we answer those questions? (Yes, that question is
leading.)
To me, the “where does the API live” is an implementation detail, and
not
where the time will need to be spent.
For the record, my answers are:
1. Yes.
2. I don’t know.
3. I don’t know; this needs some serious discussion.
4. Yes.
Thanks,
doug
On 10/24/14, 3:47 PM, "Brandon Logan" <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com>
wrote:
With the recent talk about advanced services spinning out of
Neutron,
and the fact most of the LBaaS community has wanted LBaaS to spin
out
of
Neutron, I wanted to bring up a possibility and gauge interest and
opinion on this possibility.
Octavia is going to (and has) an API. The current thinking is that
an
Octavia driver will be created in Neutron LBaaS that will make a
requests to the Octavia API. When LBaaS spins out of Neutron, it
will
need a standalone API. Octavia's API seems to be a good solution to
this. It will support vendor drivers much like the current Neutron
LBaaS does. It has a similar API as Neutron LBaaS v2, but its not
an
exact duplicate. Octavia will be growing more mature in stackforge
at
a
higher velocity than an Openstack project, so I expect by the time
Kilo
comes around it's API will be very mature.
Octavia's API doesn't have to be called Octavia either. It can be
separated out and it can be called Openstack LBaaS, and the rest of
Octavia (the actual brains of it) will just be another driver to
Openstack LBaaS, which would retain the Octavia name.
This is my PROS and CONS list to using Octavia's API as the spun out
LBaaS:
PROS
1. Time will need to be spent on a spun out LBaaS's API anyway.
Octavia
will already have this done.
2. Most of the same people working on Octavia have worked on Neutron
LBaaS v2.
3. It's out of Neutron faster, which is good for Neutron and LBaaS.
CONS
1. The Octavia API is dissimilar enough from Neutron LBaaS v2 to be
yet
another version of an LBaaS API.
2. The Octavia API will also have a separate Operator API which will
most likely only work with Octavia, not any vendors.
The CONS are easily solvable, and IMHO the PROS greatly outweigh the
CONS.
This is just my opinion though and I'd like to hear back from as
many
as
possible. Add on to the PROS and CONS if wanted.
If it is direction we can agree on going then we can add as a
talking
point in the advanced services spin out meeting:
http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/event/8a0b7c1d64883c08286e4446e163f
1a6
#.
VEq66HWx3UY
Thanks,
Brandon
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
