Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Sergey Kraynev]

Guys, my apologize for the delay. Now I can give answers.

Stephen, Heat meeting scheduled on Wednesday. (
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/HeatAgenda)

Result was really short and clear: use suggested in this mail thread naming
OS::LBaaS::*  and add new resources.
I personally think, that this work requires separate BP + spec. So some
corner cases about similar resources may be discussed on review for this
specification.

Thank you guys, for the raising this idea. We  definitely should provide
new "fresh" resources for users :)

Regards,
Sergey.

On 25 September 2015 at 01:30, Doug Wiegley <doug...@parksidesoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi Sergey,
>
> I agree with the previous comments here. While supporting several APIs at
> once, with one set of objects, is a noble goal, in this case, the object
> relationships are *completely* different. Unless you want to get into the
> business of redefining your own higher-level API abstractions in all cases,
> that general strategy for all things will be awkward and difficult.
>
> Some API changes lend themselves well to object reuse abstractions. Some
> don’t. Lbaas v2 is definitely the latter, IMO.
>
> What was the result of your meeting discussion?  (*goes to grub around in
> eavesdrop logs after typing this.*)
>
> Thanks,
> doug
>
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2015, at 12:09 PM, Sergey Kraynev <skray...@mirantis.com>
> wrote:
>
> Guys. I happy, that you already discussed it here :)
> However, I'd like to raise same question on our Heat IRC meeting.
> Probably we should define some common concepts, because I think, that
> lbaas is not single example of service with
> several APIs.
> I will post update in this thread later (after meeting).
>
> Regards,
> Sergey.
>
> On 23 September 2015 at 14:37, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Seperate ns would work great.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kevin
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Banashankar KV
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:14:35 PM
>>
>> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
>> LbaasV2
>>
>> What you think about separating both of them with the name as Doug
>> mentioned. In future if we want to get rid of the v1 we can just remove
>> that namespace. Everything will be clean.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Banashankar
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> As I understand it, loadbalancer in v2 is more like pool was in v1. Can
>>> we make it such that if you are using the loadbalancer resource and have
>>> the mandatory v2 properties that it tries to use v2 api, otherwise its a v1
>>> resource? PoolMember should be ok being the same. It just needs to call v1
>>> or v2 depending on if the lb its pointing at is v1 or v2. Is monitor's api
>>> different between them? Can it be like pool member?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From:* Brandon Logan
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 22, 2015 5:39:03 PM
>>>
>>> *To:* openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
>>> LbaasV2
>>>
>>> So for the API v1s api is of the structure:
>>>
>>> /lb/(vip|pool|member|health_monitor)
>>>
>>> V2s is:
>>> /lbaas/(loadbalancer|listener|pool|healthmonitor)
>>>
>>> member is a child of pool, so it would go down one level.
>>>
>>> The only difference is the lb for v1 and lbaas for v2.  Not sure if that
>>> is enough of a different.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Brandon
>>> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 23:48 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
>>> > Thats the problem. :/
>>> >
>>> > I can't think of a way to have them coexist without: breaking old
>>> > templates, including v2 in the name, or having a flag on the resource
>>> > saying the version is v2. And as an app developer I'd rather not have
>>> > my existing templates break.
>>> >
>>> > I haven't compared the api's at all, but is there a required field of
>>> > v2 that is different enough from v1 that by its simple existence in
>>> > the resource you can tell a v2 from a v1 object? Would something like
>>> > that work? PoolMember wouldn't have to change, the same resource could
>>> > probably work for whatever lb it was pointing at I'm guessing.
>>> >
>&g

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Banashankar KV]

Hi All,
Have created a BP for the task. Please review it.

https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/lbaasv2-suport


Thanks
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Sergey Kraynev <skray...@mirantis.com>
wrote:

> Guys, my apologize for the delay. Now I can give answers.
>
> Stephen, Heat meeting scheduled on Wednesday. (
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/HeatAgenda)
>
> Result was really short and clear: use suggested in this mail thread
> naming OS::LBaaS::*  and add new resources.
> I personally think, that this work requires separate BP + spec. So some
> corner cases about similar resources may be discussed on review for this
> specification.
>
> Thank you guys, for the raising this idea. We  definitely should provide
> new "fresh" resources for users :)
>
> Regards,
> Sergey.
>
> On 25 September 2015 at 01:30, Doug Wiegley <doug...@parksidesoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sergey,
>>
>> I agree with the previous comments here. While supporting several APIs at
>> once, with one set of objects, is a noble goal, in this case, the object
>> relationships are *completely* different. Unless you want to get into the
>> business of redefining your own higher-level API abstractions in all cases,
>> that general strategy for all things will be awkward and difficult.
>>
>> Some API changes lend themselves well to object reuse abstractions. Some
>> don’t. Lbaas v2 is definitely the latter, IMO.
>>
>> What was the result of your meeting discussion?  (*goes to grub around in
>> eavesdrop logs after typing this.*)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> doug
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 12:09 PM, Sergey Kraynev <skray...@mirantis.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Guys. I happy, that you already discussed it here :)
>> However, I'd like to raise same question on our Heat IRC meeting.
>> Probably we should define some common concepts, because I think, that
>> lbaas is not single example of service with
>> several APIs.
>> I will post update in this thread later (after meeting).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sergey.
>>
>> On 23 September 2015 at 14:37, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> Seperate ns would work great.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From:* Banashankar KV
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:14:35 PM
>>>
>>> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
>>> LbaasV2
>>>
>>> What you think about separating both of them with the name as Doug
>>> mentioned. In future if we want to get rid of the v1 we can just remove
>>> that namespace. Everything will be clean.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Banashankar
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I understand it, loadbalancer in v2 is more like pool was in v1. Can
>>>> we make it such that if you are using the loadbalancer resource and have
>>>> the mandatory v2 properties that it tries to use v2 api, otherwise its a v1
>>>> resource? PoolMember should be ok being the same. It just needs to call v1
>>>> or v2 depending on if the lb its pointing at is v1 or v2. Is monitor's api
>>>> different between them? Can it be like pool member?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Kevin
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *From:* Brandon Logan
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 22, 2015 5:39:03 PM
>>>>
>>>> *To:* openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
>>>> LbaasV2
>>>>
>>>> So for the API v1s api is of the structure:
>>>>
>>>> /lb/(vip|pool|member|health_monitor)
>>>>
>>>> V2s is:
>>>> /lbaas/(loadbalancer|listener|pool|healthmonitor)
>>>>
>>>> member is a child of pool, so it would go down one level.
>>>>
>>>> The only difference is the lb for v1 and lbaas for v2.  Not sure if that
>>>> is enough of a different.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Brandon
>>>> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 23:48 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
>>>> > Thats the problem. :/
>>>> >
>>>> > I can't think of a way to have them coexist without

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Stephen Balukoff]

Sergey--

When is the Heat IRC meeting? Would it be helpful to have an LBaaS person
there to help explain things?

Also yes, Kevin is right: LBaaS v1 and LBaaS v2 are very incompatible (both
the API and the underlying object model). They are different enough that
when we looked at making some way of making LBaaS v2 backward compatible
with v1, we eventually gave up after a couple months of trying to figure
out how to make this work, and decided people would have to live with the
fact that v1 would eventually be deprecated and go away entirely, but in
the mean time maintain effectively two different major code paths in the
same source tree. Nobody claims it's pretty, eh.

I also agree with Doug's suggestion that a namespace change seems like the
right way to approach this.

Stephen

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:

> One of the weird things about the lbaasv1 vs v2 thing which is different
> from just about every other v1->v2 change I've seen is v1 and v2 lb's are
> totally separate things. Unlike, say cinder, where doing a list volumes
> would show up in both api's, so upgrading is smooth.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> --
> *From:* Sergey Kraynev [skray...@mirantis.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 23, 2015 11:09 AM
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2
>
> Guys. I happy, that you already discussed it here :)
> However, I'd like to raise same question on our Heat IRC meeting.
> Probably we should define some common concepts, because I think, that
> lbaas is not single example of service with
> several APIs.
> I will post update in this thread later (after meeting).
>
> Regards,
> Sergey.
>
> On 23 September 2015 at 14:37, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Seperate ns would work great.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kevin
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Banashankar KV
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:14:35 PM
>>
>> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
>> LbaasV2
>>
>> What you think about separating both of them with the name as Doug
>> mentioned. In future if we want to get rid of the v1 we can just remove
>> that namespace. Everything will be clean.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Banashankar
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> As I understand it, loadbalancer in v2 is more like pool was in v1. Can
>>> we make it such that if you are using the loadbalancer resource and have
>>> the mandatory v2 properties that it tries to use v2 api, otherwise its a v1
>>> resource? PoolMember should be ok being the same. It just needs to call v1
>>> or v2 depending on if the lb its pointing at is v1 or v2. Is monitor's api
>>> different between them? Can it be like pool member?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From:* Brandon Logan
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 22, 2015 5:39:03 PM
>>>
>>> *To:* openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
>>> LbaasV2
>>>
>>> So for the API v1s api is of the structure:
>>>
>>> /lb/(vip|pool|member|health_monitor)
>>>
>>> V2s is:
>>> /lbaas/(loadbalancer|listener|pool|healthmonitor)
>>>
>>> member is a child of pool, so it would go down one level.
>>>
>>> The only difference is the lb for v1 and lbaas for v2.  Not sure if that
>>> is enough of a different.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Brandon
>>> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 23:48 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
>>> > Thats the problem. :/
>>> >
>>> > I can't think of a way to have them coexist without: breaking old
>>> > templates, including v2 in the name, or having a flag on the resource
>>> > saying the version is v2. And as an app developer I'd rather not have
>>> > my existing templates break.
>>> >
>>> > I haven't compared the api's at all, but is there a required field of
>>> > v2 that is different enough from v1 that by its simple existence in
>>> > the resource you can tell a v2 from a v1 object? Would something like
>>> > that work? PoolMember wouldn't have to change, the same resource could
>>> > probably work for whatever lb it was pointing at I'm guessing.

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Doug Wiegley]

Hi Sergey,

I agree with the previous comments here. While supporting several APIs at once, 
with one set of objects, is a noble goal, in this case, the object 
relationships are *completely* different. Unless you want to get into the 
business of redefining your own higher-level API abstractions in all cases, 
that general strategy for all things will be awkward and difficult.

Some API changes lend themselves well to object reuse abstractions. Some don’t. 
Lbaas v2 is definitely the latter, IMO.

What was the result of your meeting discussion?  (*goes to grub around in 
eavesdrop logs after typing this.*)

Thanks,
doug



> On Sep 23, 2015, at 12:09 PM, Sergey Kraynev <skray...@mirantis.com> wrote:
> 
> Guys. I happy, that you already discussed it here :)
> However, I'd like to raise same question on our Heat IRC meeting.
> Probably we should define some common concepts, because I think, that lbaas 
> is not single example of service with
> several APIs.
> I will post update in this thread later (after meeting).
> 
> Regards,
> Sergey.
> 
> On 23 September 2015 at 14:37, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov 
> <mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:
> Seperate ns would work great.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>  
> From: Banashankar KV
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:14:35 PM
> 
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2
> 
> What you think about separating both of them with the name as Doug mentioned. 
> In future if we want to get rid of the v1 we can just remove that namespace. 
> Everything will be clean. 
> 
> Thanks 
> Banashankar
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov 
> <mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:
> As I understand it, loadbalancer in v2 is more like pool was in v1. Can we 
> make it such that if you are using the loadbalancer resource and have the 
> mandatory v2 properties that it tries to use v2 api, otherwise its a v1 
> resource? PoolMember should be ok being the same. It just needs to call v1 or 
> v2 depending on if the lb its pointing at is v1 or v2. Is monitor's api 
> different between them? Can it be like pool member?
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>  
> From: Brandon Logan
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 5:39:03 PM
> 
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org 
> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2
> 
> So for the API v1s api is of the structure:
> 
> /lb/(vip|pool|member|health_monitor)
> 
> V2s is:
> /lbaas/(loadbalancer|listener|pool|healthmonitor)
> 
> member is a child of pool, so it would go down one level.
> 
> The only difference is the lb for v1 and lbaas for v2.  Not sure if that
> is enough of a different.
> 
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 23:48 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> > Thats the problem. :/
> > 
> > I can't think of a way to have them coexist without: breaking old
> > templates, including v2 in the name, or having a flag on the resource
> > saying the version is v2. And as an app developer I'd rather not have
> > my existing templates break.
> > 
> > I haven't compared the api's at all, but is there a required field of
> > v2 that is different enough from v1 that by its simple existence in
> > the resource you can tell a v2 from a v1 object? Would something like
> > that work? PoolMember wouldn't have to change, the same resource could
> > probably work for whatever lb it was pointing at I'm guessing.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Kevin
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > __
> > From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com <mailto:banvee...@gmail.com>]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:40 PM
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
> > LbaasV2
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Ok, sounds good. So now the question is how should we name the new V2
> > resources ? 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks  
> > Banashankar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov 
> > <mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>>
> > wrote:
> > Yes, hence the need to support the v2 resources as seperate
> > things. Then I can rewrite the templates to include the new
> > resources rather then the old resources as appropriate. IE, it
> > will be a porting effort to rewrite them. Then do a he

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Fox, Kevin M]

Seperate ns would work great.

Thanks,
Kevin


From: Banashankar KV
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:14:35 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

What you think about separating both of them with the name as Doug mentioned. 
In future if we want to get rid of the v1 we can just remove that namespace. 
Everything will be clean.

Thanks
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
<kevin@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:
As I understand it, loadbalancer in v2 is more like pool was in v1. Can we make 
it such that if you are using the loadbalancer resource and have the mandatory 
v2 properties that it tries to use v2 api, otherwise its a v1 resource? 
PoolMember should be ok being the same. It just needs to call v1 or v2 
depending on if the lb its pointing at is v1 or v2. Is monitor's api different 
between them? Can it be like pool member?

Thanks,
Kevin


From: Brandon Logan
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 5:39:03 PM

To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

So for the API v1s api is of the structure:

/lb/(vip|pool|member|health_monitor)

V2s is:
/lbaas/(loadbalancer|listener|pool|healthmonitor)

member is a child of pool, so it would go down one level.

The only difference is the lb for v1 and lbaas for v2.  Not sure if that
is enough of a different.

Thanks,
Brandon
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 23:48 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> Thats the problem. :/
>
> I can't think of a way to have them coexist without: breaking old
> templates, including v2 in the name, or having a flag on the resource
> saying the version is v2. And as an app developer I'd rather not have
> my existing templates break.
>
> I haven't compared the api's at all, but is there a required field of
> v2 that is different enough from v1 that by its simple existence in
> the resource you can tell a v2 from a v1 object? Would something like
> that work? PoolMember wouldn't have to change, the same resource could
> probably work for whatever lb it was pointing at I'm guessing.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
>
>
> __
> From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com<mailto:banvee...@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:40 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
> LbaasV2
>
>
>
> Ok, sounds good. So now the question is how should we name the new V2
> resources ?
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Banashankar
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
> <kevin@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>>
> wrote:
> Yes, hence the need to support the v2 resources as seperate
> things. Then I can rewrite the templates to include the new
> resources rather then the old resources as appropriate. IE, it
> will be a porting effort to rewrite them. Then do a heat
> update on the stack to migrate it from lbv1 to lbv2. Since
> they are different resources, it should create the new and
> delete the old.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
>
> __
> From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com<mailto:banvee...@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:16 PM
>
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support
> for LbaasV2
>
>
>
>
> But I think, V2 has introduced some new components and whole
> association of the resources with each other is changed, we
> should be still able to do what Kevin has mentioned ?
>
> Thanks
> Banashankar
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Fox, Kevin M
> <kevin@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:
> There needs to be a way to have both v1 and v2
> supported in one engine
>
> Say I have templates that use v1 already in existence
> (I do), and I want to be able to heat stack update on
> them one at a time to v2. This will replace the v1 lb
> with v2, migrating the floating ip from the v1 lb to
> the v2 one. This gives a smoothish upgrade path.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Fox, Kevin M]

One of the weird things about the lbaasv1 vs v2 thing which is different from 
just about every other v1->v2 change I've seen is v1 and v2 lb's are totally 
separate things. Unlike, say cinder, where doing a list volumes would show up 
in both api's, so upgrading is smooth.

Thanks,
Kevin

From: Sergey Kraynev [skray...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 11:09 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

Guys. I happy, that you already discussed it here :)
However, I'd like to raise same question on our Heat IRC meeting.
Probably we should define some common concepts, because I think, that lbaas is 
not single example of service with
several APIs.
I will post update in this thread later (after meeting).

Regards,
Sergey.

On 23 September 2015 at 14:37, Fox, Kevin M 
<kevin@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:
Seperate ns would work great.

Thanks,
Kevin


From: Banashankar KV
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:14:35 PM

To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

What you think about separating both of them with the name as Doug mentioned. 
In future if we want to get rid of the v1 we can just remove that namespace. 
Everything will be clean.

Thanks
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
<kevin@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:
As I understand it, loadbalancer in v2 is more like pool was in v1. Can we make 
it such that if you are using the loadbalancer resource and have the mandatory 
v2 properties that it tries to use v2 api, otherwise its a v1 resource? 
PoolMember should be ok being the same. It just needs to call v1 or v2 
depending on if the lb its pointing at is v1 or v2. Is monitor's api different 
between them? Can it be like pool member?

Thanks,
Kevin


From: Brandon Logan
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 5:39:03 PM

To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

So for the API v1s api is of the structure:

/lb/(vip|pool|member|health_monitor)

V2s is:
/lbaas/(loadbalancer|listener|pool|healthmonitor)

member is a child of pool, so it would go down one level.

The only difference is the lb for v1 and lbaas for v2.  Not sure if that
is enough of a different.

Thanks,
Brandon
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 23:48 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> Thats the problem. :/
>
> I can't think of a way to have them coexist without: breaking old
> templates, including v2 in the name, or having a flag on the resource
> saying the version is v2. And as an app developer I'd rather not have
> my existing templates break.
>
> I haven't compared the api's at all, but is there a required field of
> v2 that is different enough from v1 that by its simple existence in
> the resource you can tell a v2 from a v1 object? Would something like
> that work? PoolMember wouldn't have to change, the same resource could
> probably work for whatever lb it was pointing at I'm guessing.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
>
>
> __
> From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com<mailto:banvee...@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:40 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
> LbaasV2
>
>
>
> Ok, sounds good. So now the question is how should we name the new V2
> resources ?
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Banashankar
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
> <kevin@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>>
> wrote:
> Yes, hence the need to support the v2 resources as seperate
> things. Then I can rewrite the templates to include the new
> resources rather then the old resources as appropriate. IE, it
> will be a porting effort to rewrite them. Then do a heat
> update on the stack to migrate it from lbv1 to lbv2. Since
> they are different resources, it should create the new and
> delete the old.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
>
> __
> From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com<mailto:banvee...@gmail.com>]
>     Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:16 PM
>
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support
> for LbaasV2
>
>
>
&

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Sergey Kraynev]

Guys. I happy, that you already discussed it here :)
However, I'd like to raise same question on our Heat IRC meeting.
Probably we should define some common concepts, because I think, that lbaas
is not single example of service with
several APIs.
I will post update in this thread later (after meeting).

Regards,
Sergey.

On 23 September 2015 at 14:37, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:

> Seperate ns would work great.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
> --
> *From:* Banashankar KV
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:14:35 PM
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2
>
> What you think about separating both of them with the name as Doug
> mentioned. In future if we want to get rid of the v1 we can just remove
> that namespace. Everything will be clean.
>
> Thanks
> Banashankar
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
>
>> As I understand it, loadbalancer in v2 is more like pool was in v1. Can
>> we make it such that if you are using the loadbalancer resource and have
>> the mandatory v2 properties that it tries to use v2 api, otherwise its a v1
>> resource? PoolMember should be ok being the same. It just needs to call v1
>> or v2 depending on if the lb its pointing at is v1 or v2. Is monitor's api
>> different between them? Can it be like pool member?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kevin
>>
>> ------
>> *From:* Brandon Logan
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 22, 2015 5:39:03 PM
>>
>> *To:* openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
>> LbaasV2
>>
>> So for the API v1s api is of the structure:
>>
>> /lb/(vip|pool|member|health_monitor)
>>
>> V2s is:
>> /lbaas/(loadbalancer|listener|pool|healthmonitor)
>>
>> member is a child of pool, so it would go down one level.
>>
>> The only difference is the lb for v1 and lbaas for v2.  Not sure if that
>> is enough of a different.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brandon
>> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 23:48 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
>> > Thats the problem. :/
>> >
>> > I can't think of a way to have them coexist without: breaking old
>> > templates, including v2 in the name, or having a flag on the resource
>> > saying the version is v2. And as an app developer I'd rather not have
>> > my existing templates break.
>> >
>> > I haven't compared the api's at all, but is there a required field of
>> > v2 that is different enough from v1 that by its simple existence in
>> > the resource you can tell a v2 from a v1 object? Would something like
>> > that work? PoolMember wouldn't have to change, the same resource could
>> > probably work for whatever lb it was pointing at I'm guessing.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Kevin
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > __
>> > From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:40 PM
>> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
>> > LbaasV2
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Ok, sounds good. So now the question is how should we name the new V2
>> > resources ?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Banashankar
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov>
>> > wrote:
>> > Yes, hence the need to support the v2 resources as seperate
>> > things. Then I can rewrite the templates to include the new
>> > resources rather then the old resources as appropriate. IE, it
>> >     will be a porting effort to rewrite them. Then do a heat
>> > update on the stack to migrate it from lbv1 to lbv2. Since
>> > they are different resources, it should create the new and
>> > delete the old.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Kevin
>> >
>> >
>> > __
>> > From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:16 PM
>> >
>> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
>> > questions)
>

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Sergey Kraynev]

Brandon.

As I understand we v1 and v2 have differences also in list of objects and
also in relationships between them.
So I don't think that it will be easy to upgrade old resources
(unfortunately).
I'd agree with second Kevin's suggestion about implementation new resources
in this case.

I see, that a lot of guys, who wants to help  with it :) And I suppose,
that me and Rabi Mishra may try to help with it, because we was involvement
in implementation of v1 resources in Heat.
Follow the list of v1 lbaas resources in Heat:

http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::Pool
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::PoolMember
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::HealthMonitor

Also, I suppose, that it may be discussed during summit talks :)
Will add to etherpad with potential sessions.


Regards,
Sergey.

On 22 September 2015 at 22:27, Brandon Logan <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com>
wrote:

> There is some overlap, but there was some incompatible differences when
> we started designing v2.  I'm sure the same issues will arise this time
> around so new resources sounds like the path to go.  However, I do not
> know much about Heat and the resources so I'm speaking on a very
> uneducated level here.
>
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 18:38 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> > We're using the v1 resources...
> >
> > If the v2 ones are compatible and can seamlessly upgrade, great
> >
> > Otherwise, make new ones please.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kevin
> >
> > __
> > From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:07 AM
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
> > LbaasV2
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Brandon,
> > Work in progress, but need some input on the way we want them, like
> > replace the existing lbaasv1 or we still need to support them ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Banashankar
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Brandon Logan
> > <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> > Hi Banashankar,
> > I think it'd be great if you got this going.  One of those
> > things we
> > want to have and people ask for but has always gotten a lower
> > priority
> > due to the critical things needed.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Brandon
> > On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 17:57 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > > I was thinking of starting the work on heat to support
> > LBaasV2,  Is
> > > there any concerns about that?
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't know if it is the right time to bring this up :D .
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Banashankar (bana_k)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
>  __
> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > Unsubscribe:
> > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > >
> >
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> >
>  __
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
> > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> >
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> __
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Fox, Kevin M]

We're using the v1 resources...

If the v2 ones are compatible and can seamlessly upgrade, great

Otherwise, make new ones please.

Thanks,
Kevin

From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:07 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

Hi Brandon,
Work in progress, but need some input on the way we want them, like replace the 
existing lbaasv1 or we still need to support them ?




Thanks
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Brandon Logan 
<brandon.lo...@rackspace.com<mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com>> wrote:
Hi Banashankar,
I think it'd be great if you got this going.  One of those things we
want to have and people ask for but has always gotten a lower priority
due to the critical things needed.

Thanks,
Brandon
On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 17:57 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
> Hi All,
> I was thinking of starting the work on heat to support LBaasV2,  Is
> there any concerns about that?
>
>
> I don't know if it is the right time to bring this up :D .
>
> Thanks,
> Banashankar (bana_k)
>
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: 
> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: 
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Brandon Logan]

There is some overlap, but there was some incompatible differences when
we started designing v2.  I'm sure the same issues will arise this time
around so new resources sounds like the path to go.  However, I do not
know much about Heat and the resources so I'm speaking on a very
uneducated level here.

Thanks,
Brandon
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 18:38 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> We're using the v1 resources...
> 
> If the v2 ones are compatible and can seamlessly upgrade, great
> 
> Otherwise, make new ones please.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 
> __
> From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:07 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
> LbaasV2
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Brandon, 
> Work in progress, but need some input on the way we want them, like
> replace the existing lbaasv1 or we still need to support them ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks  
> Banashankar
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Brandon Logan
> <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> Hi Banashankar,
> I think it'd be great if you got this going.  One of those
> things we
> want to have and people ask for but has always gotten a lower
> priority
> due to the critical things needed.
> 
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 17:57 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > I was thinking of starting the work on heat to support
> LBaasV2,  Is
> > there any concerns about that?
> >
> >
> > I don't know if it is the right time to bring this up :D .
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Banashankar (bana_k)
> >
> >
> 
> >
> 
> __
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> >
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> 
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe:
> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> 
> 
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Ethan Lynn]

Hi Banashankar,
  There's a BP for this
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/support-neutron-lb-v2-model-definition
.
  And I plan to submit a spec for it but I haven't figure out how to
implement it. Maybe we can work together with huangtianhua.
There are two choices to implement it:
  1. Add totally new resources for LBaasV2 like OS::Neutron::LoadBalancerV2.
  2. Modify exists resources to support LBaasV2, like adding new property
'version' to control which properties should use for each version.

Hope to hear more feedback.

2015-09-22 8:57 GMT+08:00 Banashankar KV :

> Hi All,
> I was thinking of starting the work on heat to support LBaasV2,  Is there
> any concerns about that?
>
> I don't know if it is the right time to bring this up :D .
>
> Thanks,
> Banashankar (bana_k)
>
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Banashankar KV]

Hi Brandon,
Work in progress, but need some input on the way we want them, like replace
the existing lbaasv1 or we still need to support them ?




Thanks
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Brandon Logan 
wrote:

> Hi Banashankar,
> I think it'd be great if you got this going.  One of those things we
> want to have and people ask for but has always gotten a lower priority
> due to the critical things needed.
>
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 17:57 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > I was thinking of starting the work on heat to support LBaasV2,  Is
> > there any concerns about that?
> >
> >
> > I don't know if it is the right time to bring this up :D .
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Banashankar (bana_k)
> >
> >
> >
> __
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Brandon Logan]

Hi Banashankar,
I think it'd be great if you got this going.  One of those things we
want to have and people ask for but has always gotten a lower priority
due to the critical things needed.

Thanks,
Brandon
On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 17:57 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
> Hi All,
> I was thinking of starting the work on heat to support LBaasV2,  Is
> there any concerns about that?
> 
> 
> I don't know if it is the right time to bring this up :D . 
> 
> Thanks,
> Banashankar (bana_k)
> 
> 
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Brandon Logan]

I do like Doug's suggestion of namespace change.  One day lbaas will no
longer be an extension of neutron (at least that is my hope and it seems
to be going in that direction), and thus the only reason to be
considered part of neutron is just a logical grouping of networking
services.

Cutting the rant short, is that namespace change enough to avoid all
naming collisions between v1 and v2?

Thanks,
Brandon
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 17:00 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
> But whatever it is, I think we can't run the current heat template  as
> it is for v2, those things must be ported no matter what.  
> So I think our main concern here is coexistence of v1 and v2 heat
> support. 
> 
> 
> Please correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> Thanks 
> Banashankar
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Doug Wiegley
> <doug...@parksidesoftware.com> wrote:
> The other option would be to change the namespace.  (Os::Lbaas
> instead of Os::Neutron).  The neutron CLI does something
> similar with neutron-lb-* versus neutron-lbaas-*, e.g.
> 
> 
> One wrinkle with heat supporting both is that neutron doesn’t
> support both running at the same time, which certainly hurts
> the migration strategy. I think the answer at the time was
> that you could have different api servers running each
> version. Is that something that heat can deal with?
> 
> 
> (I still don’t like that I can’t run both at the same time,
> and would love to re-litigate that argument.  :-)  ).
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> doug
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On Sep 22, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Banashankar KV
> > <banvee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Ok, sounds good. So now the question is how should we name
> > the new V2 resources ?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks 
> > Banashankar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M
> > <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
> > Yes, hence the need to support the v2 resources as
> > seperate things. Then I can rewrite the templates to
> > include the new resources rather then the old
> > resources as appropriate. IE, it will be a porting
> > effort to rewrite them. Then do a heat update on the
> > stack to migrate it from lbv1 to lbv2. Since they
> > are different resources, it should create the new
> > and delete the old.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Kevin
> > 
> > 
> > ____________
>     >     From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:16 PM
> > 
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for
> > usage questions)
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat
> > support for LbaasV2
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > But I think, V2 has introduced some new components
> > and whole association of the resources with each
> > other is changed, we should be still able to do what
> > Kevin has mentioned ?
> > 
> > Thanks  
> > Banashankar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Fox, Kevin M
> > <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
> > There needs to be a way to have both v1 and
> > v2 supported in one engine
> > 
> > Say I have templates that use v1 already in
> > existence (I do), and I want to be able to
> > heat stack update on them one at a time to
> > v2. This will replace the v1 lb with v2,
> > migrating the floating ip from the v1 lb to
> > the v2 one. This gives a smoothish upgrade
> > path.
>     >      

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Brandon Logan]

So for the API v1s api is of the structure:

/lb/(vip|pool|member|health_monitor)

V2s is:
/lbaas/(loadbalancer|listener|pool|healthmonitor)

member is a child of pool, so it would go down one level.

The only difference is the lb for v1 and lbaas for v2.  Not sure if that
is enough of a different.

Thanks,
Brandon
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 23:48 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> Thats the problem. :/
> 
> I can't think of a way to have them coexist without: breaking old
> templates, including v2 in the name, or having a flag on the resource
> saying the version is v2. And as an app developer I'd rather not have
> my existing templates break.
> 
> I haven't compared the api's at all, but is there a required field of
> v2 that is different enough from v1 that by its simple existence in
> the resource you can tell a v2 from a v1 object? Would something like
> that work? PoolMember wouldn't have to change, the same resource could
> probably work for whatever lb it was pointing at I'm guessing.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 
> 
> 
> __
> From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:40 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
> LbaasV2
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, sounds good. So now the question is how should we name the new V2
> resources ? 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks  
> Banashankar
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov>
> wrote:
> Yes, hence the need to support the v2 resources as seperate
> things. Then I can rewrite the templates to include the new
> resources rather then the old resources as appropriate. IE, it
> will be a porting effort to rewrite them. Then do a heat
> update on the stack to migrate it from lbv1 to lbv2. Since
> they are different resources, it should create the new and
> delete the old.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 
> 
> __
> From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:16 PM 
> 
>     To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support
> for LbaasV2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I think, V2 has introduced some new components and whole
> association of the resources with each other is changed, we
> should be still able to do what Kevin has mentioned ?
> 
> Thanks  
> Banashankar
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Fox, Kevin M
> <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
> There needs to be a way to have both v1 and v2
> supported in one engine
> 
> Say I have templates that use v1 already in existence
> (I do), and I want to be able to heat stack update on
> them one at a time to v2. This will replace the v1 lb
> with v2, migrating the floating ip from the v1 lb to
> the v2 one. This gives a smoothish upgrade path.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>     ____________
>     From: Brandon Logan [brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:22 PM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat
> support for LbaasV2
> 
> Well I'd hate to have the V2 postfix on it because V1
> will be deprecated
> and removed, which means the V2 being there would be
> lame.  Is there any
> kind of precedent set for for how to handle this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 14:49 -0700, Banashankar KV
> wrote:
> > So are we thinking of making it as ?
> > OS::Neutron::LoadBalancerV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::ListenerV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::PoolV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::PoolMemberV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::HealthMonitorV2
>  

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Fox, Kevin M]

As I understand it, loadbalancer in v2 is more like pool was in v1. Can we make 
it such that if you are using the loadbalancer resource and have the mandatory 
v2 properties that it tries to use v2 api, otherwise its a v1 resource? 
PoolMember should be ok being the same. It just needs to call v1 or v2 
depending on if the lb its pointing at is v1 or v2. Is monitor's api different 
between them? Can it be like pool member?

Thanks,
Kevin


From: Brandon Logan
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 5:39:03 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

So for the API v1s api is of the structure:

/lb/(vip|pool|member|health_monitor)

V2s is:
/lbaas/(loadbalancer|listener|pool|healthmonitor)

member is a child of pool, so it would go down one level.

The only difference is the lb for v1 and lbaas for v2.  Not sure if that
is enough of a different.

Thanks,
Brandon
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 23:48 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> Thats the problem. :/
>
> I can't think of a way to have them coexist without: breaking old
> templates, including v2 in the name, or having a flag on the resource
> saying the version is v2. And as an app developer I'd rather not have
> my existing templates break.
>
> I haven't compared the api's at all, but is there a required field of
> v2 that is different enough from v1 that by its simple existence in
> the resource you can tell a v2 from a v1 object? Would something like
> that work? PoolMember wouldn't have to change, the same resource could
> probably work for whatever lb it was pointing at I'm guessing.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
>
>
> __
> From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:40 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
> LbaasV2
>
>
>
> Ok, sounds good. So now the question is how should we name the new V2
> resources ?
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Banashankar
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov>
> wrote:
> Yes, hence the need to support the v2 resources as seperate
> things. Then I can rewrite the templates to include the new
> resources rather then the old resources as appropriate. IE, it
> will be a porting effort to rewrite them. Then do a heat
> update on the stack to migrate it from lbv1 to lbv2. Since
> they are different resources, it should create the new and
> delete the old.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
>
> __
> From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
>         Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:16 PM
>
>     To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support
> for LbaasV2
>
>
>
>
> But I think, V2 has introduced some new components and whole
> association of the resources with each other is changed, we
> should be still able to do what Kevin has mentioned ?
>
> Thanks
> Banashankar
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Fox, Kevin M
> <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
> There needs to be a way to have both v1 and v2
> supported in one engine
>
> Say I have templates that use v1 already in existence
> (I do), and I want to be able to heat stack update on
> them one at a time to v2. This will replace the v1 lb
> with v2, migrating the floating ip from the v1 lb to
> the v2 one. This gives a smoothish upgrade path.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>     ____________
>     From: Brandon Logan [brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:22 PM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat
> support for LbaasV2
>
> Well I'd hate to have the V2 postfix on it because V1
> will be deprecated
> and removed, which means the V2 being there would be
> lame.  Is there any
> kind of precedent set for for how to handle this?
>
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 14:49 -0700, Banashankar KV
>

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Banashankar KV]

So are we thinking of making it as ?
OS::Neutron::LoadBalancerV2
OS::Neutron::ListenerV2
OS::Neutron::PoolV2
OS::Neutron::PoolMemberV2
OS::Neutron::HealthMonitorV2

and add all those into the loadbalancer.py of heat engine ?

Thanks
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Sergey Kraynev <skray...@mirantis.com>
wrote:

> Brandon.
>
> As I understand we v1 and v2 have differences also in list of objects and
> also in relationships between them.
> So I don't think that it will be easy to upgrade old resources
> (unfortunately).
> I'd agree with second Kevin's suggestion about implementation new
> resources in this case.
>
> I see, that a lot of guys, who wants to help  with it :) And I suppose,
> that me and Rabi Mishra may try to help with it, because we was involvement
> in implementation of v1 resources in Heat.
> Follow the list of v1 lbaas resources in Heat:
>
>
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer
>
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::Pool
>
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::PoolMember
>
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::HealthMonitor
>
> Also, I suppose, that it may be discussed during summit talks :)
> Will add to etherpad with potential sessions.
>
>
> Regards,
> Sergey.
>
> On 22 September 2015 at 22:27, Brandon Logan <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There is some overlap, but there was some incompatible differences when
>> we started designing v2.  I'm sure the same issues will arise this time
>> around so new resources sounds like the path to go.  However, I do not
>> know much about Heat and the resources so I'm speaking on a very
>> uneducated level here.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brandon
>> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 18:38 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
>> > We're using the v1 resources...
>> >
>> > If the v2 ones are compatible and can seamlessly upgrade, great
>> >
>> > Otherwise, make new ones please.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Kevin
>> >
>> > __________________________
>> > From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:07 AM
>> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
>> > LbaasV2
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Brandon,
>> > Work in progress, but need some input on the way we want them, like
>> > replace the existing lbaasv1 or we still need to support them ?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Banashankar
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Brandon Logan
>> > <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Banashankar,
>> > I think it'd be great if you got this going.  One of those
>> > things we
>> > want to have and people ask for but has always gotten a lower
>> > priority
>> > due to the critical things needed.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Brandon
>> > On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 17:57 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
>> > > Hi All,
>> > > I was thinking of starting the work on heat to support
>> > LBaasV2,  Is
>> > > there any concerns about that?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I don't know if it is the right time to bring this up :D .
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Banashankar (bana_k)
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>>  __
>> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> > > Unsubscribe:
>> > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> > >
>> >
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >
>> >
>>  __
>> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> > Unsubscribe:
>> > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.op

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Banashankar KV]

What you think about separating both of them with the name as Doug
mentioned. In future if we want to get rid of the v1 we can just remove
that namespace. Everything will be clean.

Thanks
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:

> As I understand it, loadbalancer in v2 is more like pool was in v1. Can we
> make it such that if you are using the loadbalancer resource and have the
> mandatory v2 properties that it tries to use v2 api, otherwise its a v1
> resource? PoolMember should be ok being the same. It just needs to call v1
> or v2 depending on if the lb its pointing at is v1 or v2. Is monitor's api
> different between them? Can it be like pool member?
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
> --
> *From:* Brandon Logan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 22, 2015 5:39:03 PM
>
> *To:* openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2
>
> So for the API v1s api is of the structure:
>
> /lb/(vip|pool|member|health_monitor)
>
> V2s is:
> /lbaas/(loadbalancer|listener|pool|healthmonitor)
>
> member is a child of pool, so it would go down one level.
>
> The only difference is the lb for v1 and lbaas for v2.  Not sure if that
> is enough of a different.
>
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 23:48 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> > Thats the problem. :/
> >
> > I can't think of a way to have them coexist without: breaking old
> > templates, including v2 in the name, or having a flag on the resource
> > saying the version is v2. And as an app developer I'd rather not have
> > my existing templates break.
> >
> > I haven't compared the api's at all, but is there a required field of
> > v2 that is different enough from v1 that by its simple existence in
> > the resource you can tell a v2 from a v1 object? Would something like
> > that work? PoolMember wouldn't have to change, the same resource could
> > probably work for whatever lb it was pointing at I'm guessing.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________
> > From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:40 PM
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
> > LbaasV2
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok, sounds good. So now the question is how should we name the new V2
> > resources ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Banashankar
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov>
> > wrote:
> > Yes, hence the need to support the v2 resources as seperate
> > things. Then I can rewrite the templates to include the new
> > resources rather then the old resources as appropriate. IE, it
> > will be a porting effort to rewrite them. Then do a heat
> > update on the stack to migrate it from lbv1 to lbv2. Since
> > they are different resources, it should create the new and
> >         delete the old.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> > __
> > From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:16 PM
> >
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> > questions)
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support
> > for LbaasV2
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > But I think, V2 has introduced some new components and whole
> > association of the resources with each other is changed, we
> > should be still able to do what Kevin has mentioned ?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Banashankar
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Fox, Kevin M
> > <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
> > There needs to be a way to have both v1 and v2
> > supported in one engine
> >
> > Say I have templates that use v1 already in existence
> > (I do), and I want to be able to heat stack update on
> > them one at a time to v2. This will replace the v1 lb
> > with v2, migrating the floating ip from the v1 lb to
> > the v2 one. This gives a smoothish upgrade path.
> >
> >   

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Brandon Logan]

Well I'd hate to have the V2 postfix on it because V1 will be deprecated
and removed, which means the V2 being there would be lame.  Is there any
kind of precedent set for for how to handle this?

Thanks,
Brandon
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 14:49 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
> So are we thinking of making it as ?
> OS::Neutron::LoadBalancerV2
> 
> OS::Neutron::ListenerV2
> 
> OS::Neutron::PoolV2
> 
> OS::Neutron::PoolMemberV2
> 
> OS::Neutron::HealthMonitorV2
> 
> 
> 
> and add all those into the loadbalancer.py of heat engine ?
> 
> Thanks 
> Banashankar
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Sergey Kraynev
> <skray...@mirantis.com> wrote:
> Brandon.
> 
> 
> As I understand we v1 and v2 have differences also in list of
> objects and also in relationships between them.
> So I don't think that it will be easy to upgrade old resources
> (unfortunately). 
> I'd agree with second Kevin's suggestion about implementation
> new resources in this case.
> 
> 
> I see, that a lot of guys, who wants to help  with it :) And I
> suppose, that me and Rabi Mishra may try to help with it,
> because we was involvement in implementation of v1 resources
> in Heat.
> Follow the list of v1 lbaas resources in Heat:
> 
> 
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::Pool
> 
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::PoolMember
> 
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::HealthMonitor
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I suppose, that it may be discussed during summit
> talks :)
> Will add to etherpad with potential sessions.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Sergey.
> 
> On 22 September 2015 at 22:27, Brandon Logan
> <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> There is some overlap, but there was some incompatible
> differences when
> we started designing v2.  I'm sure the same issues
> will arise this time
> around so new resources sounds like the path to go.
> However, I do not
> know much about Heat and the resources so I'm speaking
> on a very
> uneducated level here.
> 
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 18:38 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> > We're using the v1 resources...
> >
> > If the v2 ones are compatible and can seamlessly
> upgrade, great
> >
> > Otherwise, make new ones please.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> 
> __________________
>     > From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:07 AM
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for
> usage questions)
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat
> support for
> > LbaasV2
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Brandon,
> > Work in progress, but need some input on the way we
> want them, like
> > replace the existing lbaasv1 or we still need to
> support them ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Banashankar
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Brandon Logan
> > <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> > Hi Banashankar,
> > I think it'd be great if you got this going.
> One of those
> > things we
> >  

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Banashankar KV]

But I think, V2 has introduced some new components and whole association of
the resources with each other is changed, we should be still able to do
what Kevin has mentioned ?

Thanks
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:

> There needs to be a way to have both v1 and v2 supported in one engine
>
> Say I have templates that use v1 already in existence (I do), and I want
> to be able to heat stack update on them one at a time to v2. This will
> replace the v1 lb with v2, migrating the floating ip from the v1 lb to the
> v2 one. This gives a smoothish upgrade path.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 
> From: Brandon Logan [brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:22 PM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2
>
> Well I'd hate to have the V2 postfix on it because V1 will be deprecated
> and removed, which means the V2 being there would be lame.  Is there any
> kind of precedent set for for how to handle this?
>
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 14:49 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
> > So are we thinking of making it as ?
> > OS::Neutron::LoadBalancerV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::ListenerV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::PoolV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::PoolMemberV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::HealthMonitorV2
> >
> >
> >
> > and add all those into the loadbalancer.py of heat engine ?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Banashankar
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Sergey Kraynev
> > <skray...@mirantis.com> wrote:
> > Brandon.
> >
> >
> > As I understand we v1 and v2 have differences also in list of
> > objects and also in relationships between them.
> > So I don't think that it will be easy to upgrade old resources
> > (unfortunately).
> > I'd agree with second Kevin's suggestion about implementation
> > new resources in this case.
> >
> >
> > I see, that a lot of guys, who wants to help  with it :) And I
> > suppose, that me and Rabi Mishra may try to help with it,
> > because we was involvement in implementation of v1 resources
> > in Heat.
> > Follow the list of v1 lbaas resources in Heat:
> >
> >
> >
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer
> >
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::Pool
> >
> >
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::PoolMember
> >
> >
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::HealthMonitor
> >
> >
> >
> > Also, I suppose, that it may be discussed during summit
> > talks :)
> > Will add to etherpad with potential sessions.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sergey.
> >
> > On 22 September 2015 at 22:27, Brandon Logan
> > <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> > There is some overlap, but there was some incompatible
> > differences when
> > we started designing v2.  I'm sure the same issues
> > will arise this time
> > around so new resources sounds like the path to go.
> > However, I do not
> > know much about Heat and the resources so I'm speaking
> > on a very
> > uneducated level here.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Brandon
> > On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 18:38 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> > > We're using the v1 resources...
> > >
> > > If the v2 ones are compatible and can seamlessly
> > upgrade, great
> >     >
> >     > Otherwise, make new ones please.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Kevin
> > >
> > >
> >
>  __
> > > From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:07 AM
> > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for
> &

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Fox, Kevin M]

Thats the problem. :/

I can't think of a way to have them coexist without: breaking old templates, 
including v2 in the name, or having a flag on the resource saying the version 
is v2. And as an app developer I'd rather not have my existing templates break.

I haven't compared the api's at all, but is there a required field of v2 that 
is different enough from v1 that by its simple existence in the resource you 
can tell a v2 from a v1 object? Would something like that work? PoolMember 
wouldn't have to change, the same resource could probably work for whatever lb 
it was pointing at I'm guessing.

Thanks,
Kevin



From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:40 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

Ok, sounds good. So now the question is how should we name the new V2 resources 
?


Thanks
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
<kevin@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:
Yes, hence the need to support the v2 resources as seperate things. Then I can 
rewrite the templates to include the new resources rather then the old 
resources as appropriate. IE, it will be a porting effort to rewrite them. Then 
do a heat update on the stack to migrate it from lbv1 to lbv2. Since they are 
different resources, it should create the new and delete the old.

Thanks,
Kevin


From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com<mailto:banvee...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:16 PM

To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

But I think, V2 has introduced some new components and whole association of the 
resources with each other is changed, we should be still able to do what Kevin 
has mentioned ?

Thanks
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
<kevin@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:
There needs to be a way to have both v1 and v2 supported in one engine

Say I have templates that use v1 already in existence (I do), and I want to be 
able to heat stack update on them one at a time to v2. This will replace the v1 
lb with v2, migrating the floating ip from the v1 lb to the v2 one. This gives 
a smoothish upgrade path.

Thanks,
Kevin

From: Brandon Logan 
[brandon.lo...@rackspace.com<mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:22 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

Well I'd hate to have the V2 postfix on it because V1 will be deprecated
and removed, which means the V2 being there would be lame.  Is there any
kind of precedent set for for how to handle this?

Thanks,
Brandon
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 14:49 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
> So are we thinking of making it as ?
> OS::Neutron::LoadBalancerV2
>
> OS::Neutron::ListenerV2
>
> OS::Neutron::PoolV2
>
> OS::Neutron::PoolMemberV2
>
> OS::Neutron::HealthMonitorV2
>
>
>
> and add all those into the loadbalancer.py of heat engine ?
>
> Thanks
> Banashankar
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Sergey Kraynev
> <skray...@mirantis.com<mailto:skray...@mirantis.com>> wrote:
> Brandon.
>
>
> As I understand we v1 and v2 have differences also in list of
> objects and also in relationships between them.
> So I don't think that it will be easy to upgrade old resources
> (unfortunately).
> I'd agree with second Kevin's suggestion about implementation
> new resources in this case.
>
>
> I see, that a lot of guys, who wants to help  with it :) And I
> suppose, that me and Rabi Mishra may try to help with it,
> because we was involvement in implementation of v1 resources
> in Heat.
> Follow the list of v1 lbaas resources in Heat:
>
>
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::Pool
>
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::PoolMember
>
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::HealthMonitor
>
>
>
> Also, I suppose, that it may be discussed during summit
> talks :)
> Will add to etherpad with potential sessions.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Sergey.
>
> On 22 September 2015 at 22:27, Brando

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Banashankar KV]

Resource I mean, the resource type as highlighted.

description: A simple lb pool test
heat_template_version: '2015-04-30'
resources:
 my_listener:
type: OS::Neutron::*ListenerV2*
properties:
  protocol_port: 88
  protocol: HTTP
  loadbalancer_id: e3e0b1d2-12b2-4855-a5cb-6faf121b2d10
  name: holy_listener
  description: Just a listener man


Thanks
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Brandon Logan <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com>
wrote:

> Forgive my ignorance on this, but by resources are we talking about API
> resources? If so I would hate V2 to be in the names because backwards
> compatibility means keeping that around.  If they're not API resources,
> then if we named appended the resources with V2 right now, will we be
> able to remove the V2 once V1 gets removed?
>
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 16:40 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
> > Ok, sounds good. So now the question is how should we name the new V2
> > resources ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Banashankar
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov>
> > wrote:
> > Yes, hence the need to support the v2 resources as seperate
> > things. Then I can rewrite the templates to include the new
> > resources rather then the old resources as appropriate. IE, it
> > will be a porting effort to rewrite them. Then do a heat
> > update on the stack to migrate it from lbv1 to lbv2. Since
> > they are different resources, it should create the new and
> > delete the old.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> > __
> > From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
> >     Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:16 PM
> >
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> > questions)
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support
> > for LbaasV2
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > But I think, V2 has introduced some new components and whole
> > association of the resources with each other is changed, we
> > should be still able to do what Kevin has mentioned ?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Banashankar
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Fox, Kevin M
> > <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
> > There needs to be a way to have both v1 and v2
> > supported in one engine
> >
> > Say I have templates that use v1 already in existence
> > (I do), and I want to be able to heat stack update on
> > them one at a time to v2. This will replace the v1 lb
> > with v2, migrating the floating ip from the v1 lb to
> > the v2 one. This gives a smoothish upgrade path.
> >
> >     Thanks,
> > Kevin
> > 
> > From: Brandon Logan [brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:22 PM
> > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat
> > support for LbaasV2
> >
> > Well I'd hate to have the V2 postfix on it because V1
> > will be deprecated
> > and removed, which means the V2 being there would be
> > lame.  Is there any
> > kind of precedent set for for how to handle this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Brandon
> > On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 14:49 -0700, Banashankar KV
> > wrote:
> > > So are we thinking of making it as ?
> > > OS::Neutron::LoadBalancerV2
> > >
> > > OS::Neutron::ListenerV2
> > >
> > > OS::Neutron::PoolV2
> > >
> > > OS::Neutron::PoolMemberV2
> > >
> > > OS::Neutron::HealthMonitorV2
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > and add all those into the loadbalancer.py of heat
> > engine ?
> > >
> > 

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Fox, Kevin M]

There needs to be a way to have both v1 and v2 supported in one engine

Say I have templates that use v1 already in existence (I do), and I want to be 
able to heat stack update on them one at a time to v2. This will replace the v1 
lb with v2, migrating the floating ip from the v1 lb to the v2 one. This gives 
a smoothish upgrade path.

Thanks,
Kevin

From: Brandon Logan [brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:22 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

Well I'd hate to have the V2 postfix on it because V1 will be deprecated
and removed, which means the V2 being there would be lame.  Is there any
kind of precedent set for for how to handle this?

Thanks,
Brandon
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 14:49 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
> So are we thinking of making it as ?
> OS::Neutron::LoadBalancerV2
>
> OS::Neutron::ListenerV2
>
> OS::Neutron::PoolV2
>
> OS::Neutron::PoolMemberV2
>
> OS::Neutron::HealthMonitorV2
>
>
>
> and add all those into the loadbalancer.py of heat engine ?
>
> Thanks
> Banashankar
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Sergey Kraynev
> <skray...@mirantis.com> wrote:
> Brandon.
>
>
> As I understand we v1 and v2 have differences also in list of
> objects and also in relationships between them.
> So I don't think that it will be easy to upgrade old resources
> (unfortunately).
> I'd agree with second Kevin's suggestion about implementation
> new resources in this case.
>
>
> I see, that a lot of guys, who wants to help  with it :) And I
> suppose, that me and Rabi Mishra may try to help with it,
> because we was involvement in implementation of v1 resources
> in Heat.
> Follow the list of v1 lbaas resources in Heat:
>
>
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::Pool
>
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::PoolMember
>
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::HealthMonitor
>
>
>
> Also, I suppose, that it may be discussed during summit
> talks :)
> Will add to etherpad with potential sessions.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Sergey.
>
> On 22 September 2015 at 22:27, Brandon Logan
> <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> There is some overlap, but there was some incompatible
> differences when
> we started designing v2.  I'm sure the same issues
> will arise this time
> around so new resources sounds like the path to go.
> However, I do not
> know much about Heat and the resources so I'm speaking
> on a very
> uneducated level here.
>
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 18:38 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> > We're using the v1 resources...
> >
> > If the v2 ones are compatible and can seamlessly
> upgrade, great
> >
> > Otherwise, make new ones please.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> 
> __________________
>     > From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:07 AM
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for
> usage questions)
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat
> support for
> > LbaasV2
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Brandon,
> > Work in progress, but need some input on the way we
> want them, like
> > replace the existing lbaasv1 or we still need to
> support them ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Banashankar
>  

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Banashankar KV]

Ok, sounds good. So now the question is how should we name the new V2
resources ?


Thanks
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:

> Yes, hence the need to support the v2 resources as seperate things. Then I
> can rewrite the templates to include the new resources rather then the old
> resources as appropriate. IE, it will be a porting effort to rewrite them.
> Then do a heat update on the stack to migrate it from lbv1 to lbv2. Since
> they are different resources, it should create the new and delete the old.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
> --
> *From:* Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:16 PM
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2
>
> But I think, V2 has introduced some new components and whole association
> of the resources with each other is changed, we should be still able to do
> what Kevin has mentioned ?
>
> Thanks
> Banashankar
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
>
>> There needs to be a way to have both v1 and v2 supported in one engine
>>
>> Say I have templates that use v1 already in existence (I do), and I want
>> to be able to heat stack update on them one at a time to v2. This will
>> replace the v1 lb with v2, migrating the floating ip from the v1 lb to the
>> v2 one. This gives a smoothish upgrade path.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kevin
>> 
>> From: Brandon Logan [brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:22 PM
>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2
>>
>> Well I'd hate to have the V2 postfix on it because V1 will be deprecated
>> and removed, which means the V2 being there would be lame.  Is there any
>> kind of precedent set for for how to handle this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brandon
>> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 14:49 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
>> > So are we thinking of making it as ?
>> > OS::Neutron::LoadBalancerV2
>> >
>> > OS::Neutron::ListenerV2
>> >
>> > OS::Neutron::PoolV2
>> >
>> > OS::Neutron::PoolMemberV2
>> >
>> > OS::Neutron::HealthMonitorV2
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > and add all those into the loadbalancer.py of heat engine ?
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Banashankar
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Sergey Kraynev
>> > <skray...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>> > Brandon.
>> >
>> >
>> > As I understand we v1 and v2 have differences also in list of
>> > objects and also in relationships between them.
>> > So I don't think that it will be easy to upgrade old resources
>> > (unfortunately).
>> > I'd agree with second Kevin's suggestion about implementation
>> > new resources in this case.
>> >
>> >
>> > I see, that a lot of guys, who wants to help  with it :) And I
>> > suppose, that me and Rabi Mishra may try to help with it,
>> > because we was involvement in implementation of v1 resources
>> > in Heat.
>> > Follow the list of v1 lbaas resources in Heat:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer
>> >
>> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::Pool
>> >
>> >
>> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::PoolMember
>> >
>> >
>> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::HealthMonitor
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Also, I suppose, that it may be discussed during summit
>> > talks :)
>> > Will add to etherpad with potential sessions.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Sergey.
>> >
>> > On 22 September 2015 at 22:27, Brandon Logan
>> > <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>> > There is some overlap, but there was some incompatible
>> > differences when
>> > we started design

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Brandon Logan]

Forgive my ignorance on this, but by resources are we talking about API
resources? If so I would hate V2 to be in the names because backwards
compatibility means keeping that around.  If they're not API resources,
then if we named appended the resources with V2 right now, will we be
able to remove the V2 once V1 gets removed?

Thanks,
Brandon
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 16:40 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
> Ok, sounds good. So now the question is how should we name the new V2
> resources ?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks 
> Banashankar
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov>
> wrote:
> Yes, hence the need to support the v2 resources as seperate
> things. Then I can rewrite the templates to include the new
> resources rather then the old resources as appropriate. IE, it
> will be a porting effort to rewrite them. Then do a heat
> update on the stack to migrate it from lbv1 to lbv2. Since
> they are different resources, it should create the new and
> delete the old.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 
> 
> __
> From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:16 PM
> 
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support
> for LbaasV2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I think, V2 has introduced some new components and whole
> association of the resources with each other is changed, we
> should be still able to do what Kevin has mentioned ?
> 
> Thanks  
> Banashankar
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Fox, Kevin M
> <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
> There needs to be a way to have both v1 and v2
> supported in one engine
> 
> Say I have templates that use v1 already in existence
> (I do), and I want to be able to heat stack update on
> them one at a time to v2. This will replace the v1 lb
> with v2, migrating the floating ip from the v1 lb to
> the v2 one. This gives a smoothish upgrade path.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 
> From: Brandon Logan [brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
>     Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:22 PM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat
> support for LbaasV2
> 
> Well I'd hate to have the V2 postfix on it because V1
> will be deprecated
> and removed, which means the V2 being there would be
> lame.  Is there any
> kind of precedent set for for how to handle this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 14:49 -0700, Banashankar KV
> wrote:
> > So are we thinking of making it as ?
> > OS::Neutron::LoadBalancerV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::ListenerV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::PoolV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::PoolMemberV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::HealthMonitorV2
> >
> >
> >
> > and add all those into the loadbalancer.py of heat
> engine ?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Banashankar
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Sergey Kraynev
> > <skray...@mirantis.com> wrote:
> > Brandon.
> >
> >
> > As I understand we v1 and v2 have
> differences also in list of
> > objects and also in relationships between
> them.
> > So I don't think that it will be easy to
> upgrade old resources
> > (unfortunately).
> > I'd agree with second Kev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Banashankar KV]

So if that's the case, I think we can just remove the old V1 resources
implementation and just have support for the V2 as.

OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer
OS::Neutron::Listener
OS::Neutron::Pool
OS::Neutron::PoolMember
OS::Neutron::HealthMonitor

Need input of Heat experts :) .

Thanks
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Brandon Logan <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com>
wrote:

> Well I'd hate to have the V2 postfix on it because V1 will be deprecated
> and removed, which means the V2 being there would be lame.  Is there any
> kind of precedent set for for how to handle this?
>
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 14:49 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
> > So are we thinking of making it as ?
> > OS::Neutron::LoadBalancerV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::ListenerV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::PoolV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::PoolMemberV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::HealthMonitorV2
> >
> >
> >
> > and add all those into the loadbalancer.py of heat engine ?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Banashankar
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Sergey Kraynev
> > <skray...@mirantis.com> wrote:
> > Brandon.
> >
> >
> > As I understand we v1 and v2 have differences also in list of
> > objects and also in relationships between them.
> > So I don't think that it will be easy to upgrade old resources
> > (unfortunately).
> > I'd agree with second Kevin's suggestion about implementation
> > new resources in this case.
> >
> >
> > I see, that a lot of guys, who wants to help  with it :) And I
> > suppose, that me and Rabi Mishra may try to help with it,
> > because we was involvement in implementation of v1 resources
> > in Heat.
> > Follow the list of v1 lbaas resources in Heat:
> >
> >
> >
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer
> >
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::Pool
> >
> >
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::PoolMember
> >
> >
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::HealthMonitor
> >
> >
> >
> > Also, I suppose, that it may be discussed during summit
> > talks :)
> > Will add to etherpad with potential sessions.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sergey.
> >
> > On 22 September 2015 at 22:27, Brandon Logan
> > <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> > There is some overlap, but there was some incompatible
> > differences when
> > we started designing v2.  I'm sure the same issues
> > will arise this time
> > around so new resources sounds like the path to go.
> > However, I do not
> > know much about Heat and the resources so I'm speaking
> > on a very
> > uneducated level here.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Brandon
> > On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 18:38 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> > > We're using the v1 resources...
> > >
> > > If the v2 ones are compatible and can seamlessly
> > upgrade, great
> > >
> >             > Otherwise, make new ones please.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Kevin
> > >
> > >
> >
>  __
> > > From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:07 AM
> > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for
> > usage questions)
> > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat
> > support for
> > > LbaasV2
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Brandon,
> > > Work in progress, but need some input on the way we
> > want them, like
> > > replace the existing lbaasv1 or we still need to
> > support them ?

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Fox, Kevin M]

Yes, hence the need to support the v2 resources as seperate things. Then I can 
rewrite the templates to include the new resources rather then the old 
resources as appropriate. IE, it will be a porting effort to rewrite them. Then 
do a heat update on the stack to migrate it from lbv1 to lbv2. Since they are 
different resources, it should create the new and delete the old.

Thanks,
Kevin


From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:16 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

But I think, V2 has introduced some new components and whole association of the 
resources with each other is changed, we should be still able to do what Kevin 
has mentioned ?

Thanks
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
<kevin@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:
There needs to be a way to have both v1 and v2 supported in one engine

Say I have templates that use v1 already in existence (I do), and I want to be 
able to heat stack update on them one at a time to v2. This will replace the v1 
lb with v2, migrating the floating ip from the v1 lb to the v2 one. This gives 
a smoothish upgrade path.

Thanks,
Kevin

From: Brandon Logan 
[brandon.lo...@rackspace.com<mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:22 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

Well I'd hate to have the V2 postfix on it because V1 will be deprecated
and removed, which means the V2 being there would be lame.  Is there any
kind of precedent set for for how to handle this?

Thanks,
Brandon
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 14:49 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
> So are we thinking of making it as ?
> OS::Neutron::LoadBalancerV2
>
> OS::Neutron::ListenerV2
>
> OS::Neutron::PoolV2
>
> OS::Neutron::PoolMemberV2
>
> OS::Neutron::HealthMonitorV2
>
>
>
> and add all those into the loadbalancer.py of heat engine ?
>
> Thanks
> Banashankar
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Sergey Kraynev
> <skray...@mirantis.com<mailto:skray...@mirantis.com>> wrote:
> Brandon.
>
>
> As I understand we v1 and v2 have differences also in list of
> objects and also in relationships between them.
> So I don't think that it will be easy to upgrade old resources
> (unfortunately).
> I'd agree with second Kevin's suggestion about implementation
> new resources in this case.
>
>
> I see, that a lot of guys, who wants to help  with it :) And I
> suppose, that me and Rabi Mishra may try to help with it,
> because we was involvement in implementation of v1 resources
> in Heat.
> Follow the list of v1 lbaas resources in Heat:
>
>
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::Pool
>
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::PoolMember
>
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::HealthMonitor
>
>
>
> Also, I suppose, that it may be discussed during summit
> talks :)
> Will add to etherpad with potential sessions.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Sergey.
>
> On 22 September 2015 at 22:27, Brandon Logan
> <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com<mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com>> 
> wrote:
> There is some overlap, but there was some incompatible
> differences when
> we started designing v2.  I'm sure the same issues
> will arise this time
> around so new resources sounds like the path to go.
> However, I do not
> know much about Heat and the resources so I'm speaking
> on a very
> uneducated level here.
>
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 18:38 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> > We're using the v1 resources...
> >
> > If the v2 ones are compatible and can seamlessly
> upgrade, great
> >
> > Otherwise, make new ones please.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kevin
>  

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Doug Wiegley]

The other option would be to change the namespace.  (Os::Lbaas instead of 
Os::Neutron).  The neutron CLI does something similar with neutron-lb-* versus 
neutron-lbaas-*, e.g.

One wrinkle with heat supporting both is that neutron doesn’t support both 
running at the same time, which certainly hurts the migration strategy. I think 
the answer at the time was that you could have different api servers running 
each version. Is that something that heat can deal with?

(I still don’t like that I can’t run both at the same time, and would love to 
re-litigate that argument.  :-)  ).

Thanks,
doug



> On Sep 22, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Banashankar KV <banvee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ok, sounds good. So now the question is how should we name the new V2 
> resources ?
> 
> 
> Thanks 
> Banashankar
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov 
> <mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:
> Yes, hence the need to support the v2 resources as seperate things. Then I 
> can rewrite the templates to include the new resources rather then the old 
> resources as appropriate. IE, it will be a porting effort to rewrite them. 
> Then do a heat update on the stack to migrate it from lbv1 to lbv2. Since 
> they are different resources, it should create the new and delete the old.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 
> From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com <mailto:banvee...@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:16 PM
> 
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2
> 
> But I think, V2 has introduced some new components and whole association of 
> the resources with each other is changed, we should be still able to do what 
> Kevin has mentioned ?
> 
> Thanks 
> Banashankar
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov 
> <mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:
> There needs to be a way to have both v1 and v2 supported in one engine
> 
> Say I have templates that use v1 already in existence (I do), and I want to 
> be able to heat stack update on them one at a time to v2. This will replace 
> the v1 lb with v2, migrating the floating ip from the v1 lb to the v2 one. 
> This gives a smoothish upgrade path.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 
> From: Brandon Logan [brandon.lo...@rackspace.com 
> <mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:22 PM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org 
> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2
> 
> Well I'd hate to have the V2 postfix on it because V1 will be deprecated
> and removed, which means the V2 being there would be lame.  Is there any
> kind of precedent set for for how to handle this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 14:49 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
> > So are we thinking of making it as ?
> > OS::Neutron::LoadBalancerV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::ListenerV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::PoolV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::PoolMemberV2
> >
> > OS::Neutron::HealthMonitorV2
> >
> >
> >
> > and add all those into the loadbalancer.py of heat engine ?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Banashankar
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Sergey Kraynev
> > <skray...@mirantis.com <mailto:skray...@mirantis.com>> wrote:
> > Brandon.
> >
> >
> > As I understand we v1 and v2 have differences also in list of
> > objects and also in relationships between them.
> > So I don't think that it will be easy to upgrade old resources
> > (unfortunately).
> > I'd agree with second Kevin's suggestion about implementation
> > new resources in this case.
> >
> >
> > I see, that a lot of guys, who wants to help  with it :) And I
> > suppose, that me and Rabi Mishra may try to help with it,
> > because we was involvement in implementation of v1 resources
> > in Heat.
> > Follow the list of v1 lbaas resources in Heat:
> >
> >
> > 
> > http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer
> >  
> > <http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer>
> > 
> > http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::Pool
> >  
> > <http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guid

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Banashankar KV]

But whatever it is, I think we can't run the current heat template  as it
is for v2, those things must be ported no matter what.
So I think our main concern here is coexistence of v1 and v2 heat support.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Doug Wiegley <doug...@parksidesoftware.com>
wrote:

> The other option would be to change the namespace.  (Os::Lbaas instead of
> Os::Neutron).  The neutron CLI does something similar with neutron-lb-*
> versus neutron-lbaas-*, e.g.
>
> One wrinkle with heat supporting both is that neutron doesn’t support both
> running at the same time, which certainly hurts the migration strategy. I
> think the answer at the time was that you could have different api servers
> running each version. Is that something that heat can deal with?
>
> (I still don’t like that I can’t run both at the same time, and would love
> to re-litigate that argument.  :-)  ).
>
> Thanks,
> doug
>
>
>
> On Sep 22, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Banashankar KV <banvee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ok, sounds good. So now the question is how should we name the new V2
> resources ?
>
>
> Thanks
> Banashankar
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Yes, hence the need to support the v2 resources as seperate things. Then
>> I can rewrite the templates to include the new resources rather then the
>> old resources as appropriate. IE, it will be a porting effort to rewrite
>> them. Then do a heat update on the stack to migrate it from lbv1 to lbv2.
>> Since they are different resources, it should create the new and delete the
>> old.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kevin
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:16 PM
>>
>> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for
>> LbaasV2
>>
>> But I think, V2 has introduced some new components and whole association
>> of the resources with each other is changed, we should be still able to do
>> what Kevin has mentioned ?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Banashankar
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> There needs to be a way to have both v1 and v2 supported in one
>>> engine
>>>
>>> Say I have templates that use v1 already in existence (I do), and I want
>>> to be able to heat stack update on them one at a time to v2. This will
>>> replace the v1 lb with v2, migrating the floating ip from the v1 lb to the
>>> v2 one. This gives a smoothish upgrade path.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kevin
>>> 
>>> From: Brandon Logan [brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:22 PM
>>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2
>>>
>>> Well I'd hate to have the V2 postfix on it because V1 will be deprecated
>>> and removed, which means the V2 being there would be lame.  Is there any
>>> kind of precedent set for for how to handle this?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Brandon
>>> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 14:49 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
>>> > So are we thinking of making it as ?
>>> > OS::Neutron::LoadBalancerV2
>>> >
>>> > OS::Neutron::ListenerV2
>>> >
>>> > OS::Neutron::PoolV2
>>> >
>>> > OS::Neutron::PoolMemberV2
>>> >
>>> > OS::Neutron::HealthMonitorV2
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > and add all those into the loadbalancer.py of heat engine ?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks
>>> > Banashankar
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Sergey Kraynev
>>> > <skray...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>> > Brandon.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > As I understand we v1 and v2 have differences also in list of
>>> > objects and also in relationships between them.
>>> > So I don't think that it will be easy to upgrade old resources
>>> > (unfortunately).
>>> > I'd agree with second Kevin's suggestion about implementation
>>> > new resources in this case.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I see,

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Fox, Kevin M]

Ugg, That's news to me. :/ Hopefully there's a way around it.

A different namespace sounds reasonable as a workaround.

Also consider the use case where you have a newer heat then neutron. During 
upgrade there may be a time when we very well may want to support one different 
then the other. So the heat engine should be able to work with whichever is 
enabled on a particular cloud.

Thanks,
Kevin


From: Doug Wiegley [doug...@parksidesoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:53 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

The other option would be to change the namespace.  (Os::Lbaas instead of 
Os::Neutron).  The neutron CLI does something similar with neutron-lb-* versus 
neutron-lbaas-*, e.g.

One wrinkle with heat supporting both is that neutron doesn’t support both 
running at the same time, which certainly hurts the migration strategy. I think 
the answer at the time was that you could have different api servers running 
each version. Is that something that heat can deal with?

(I still don’t like that I can’t run both at the same time, and would love to 
re-litigate that argument.  :-)  ).

Thanks,
doug



On Sep 22, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Banashankar KV 
<banvee...@gmail.com<mailto:banvee...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Ok, sounds good. So now the question is how should we name the new V2 resources 
?


Thanks
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
<kevin@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:
Yes, hence the need to support the v2 resources as seperate things. Then I can 
rewrite the templates to include the new resources rather then the old 
resources as appropriate. IE, it will be a porting effort to rewrite them. Then 
do a heat update on the stack to migrate it from lbv1 to lbv2. Since they are 
different resources, it should create the new and delete the old.

Thanks,
Kevin


From: Banashankar KV [banvee...@gmail.com<mailto:banvee...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:16 PM

To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

But I think, V2 has introduced some new components and whole association of the 
resources with each other is changed, we should be still able to do what Kevin 
has mentioned ?

Thanks
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
<kevin@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:
There needs to be a way to have both v1 and v2 supported in one engine

Say I have templates that use v1 already in existence (I do), and I want to be 
able to heat stack update on them one at a time to v2. This will replace the v1 
lb with v2, migrating the floating ip from the v1 lb to the v2 one. This gives 
a smoothish upgrade path.

Thanks,
Kevin

From: Brandon Logan 
[brandon.lo...@rackspace.com<mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:22 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

Well I'd hate to have the V2 postfix on it because V1 will be deprecated
and removed, which means the V2 being there would be lame.  Is there any
kind of precedent set for for how to handle this?

Thanks,
Brandon
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 14:49 -0700, Banashankar KV wrote:
> So are we thinking of making it as ?
> OS::Neutron::LoadBalancerV2
>
> OS::Neutron::ListenerV2
>
> OS::Neutron::PoolV2
>
> OS::Neutron::PoolMemberV2
>
> OS::Neutron::HealthMonitorV2
>
>
>
> and add all those into the loadbalancer.py of heat engine ?
>
> Thanks
> Banashankar
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Sergey Kraynev
> <skray...@mirantis.com<mailto:skray...@mirantis.com>> wrote:
> Brandon.
>
>
> As I understand we v1 and v2 have differences also in list of
> objects and also in relationships between them.
> So I don't think that it will be easy to upgrade old resources
> (unfortunately).
> I'd agree with second Kevin's suggestion about implementation
> new resources in this case.
>
>
> I see, that a lot of guys, who wants to help  with it :) And I
> suppose, that me and Rabi Mishra may try to help with it,
> because we was involvement in implementation of v1 resources
> in Heat.
> Follow the list of v1 lbaas resources in Heat:
>
>
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Neutron::Pool
>
>

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Banashankar KV]

Hi Ethan,
Oh thats cool, I didn't see that BP.
Sure we can work together on it.
As there will be no support for LBaasV1 in Liberty and upcoming releases, I
think we can stick to the first approach that you mentioned.

But need to discuss whether to have the type named as
OS::Neutron::[lb_elements]V2 or OS::Neutron::[lb_elements]

lb_element being
1. Loadbalancer.
2. Listener.
3. Pool.
4. Members.
5. Health monitors.

Thanks,
Banashankar


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Ethan Lynn  wrote:

> Hi Banashankar,
>   There's a BP for this
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/support-neutron-lb-v2-model-definition
> .
>   And I plan to submit a spec for it but I haven't figure out how to
> implement it. Maybe we can work together with huangtianhua.
> There are two choices to implement it:
>   1. Add totally new resources for LBaasV2 like
> OS::Neutron::LoadBalancerV2.
>   2. Modify exists resources to support LBaasV2, like adding new property
> 'version' to control which properties should use for each version.
>
> Hope to hear more feedback.
>
> 2015-09-22 8:57 GMT+08:00 Banashankar KV :
>
>> Hi All,
>> I was thinking of starting the work on heat to support LBaasV2,  Is there
>> any concerns about that?
>>
>> I don't know if it is the right time to bring this up :D .
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Banashankar (bana_k)
>>
>>
>> __
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

[openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] - Heat support for LbaasV2

[Banashankar KV]

Hi All,
I was thinking of starting the work on heat to support LBaasV2,  Is there
any concerns about that?

I don't know if it is the right time to bring this up :D .

Thanks,
Banashankar (bana_k)
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev