Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

[Adam Lawson]

We don't use FWaaS but we certainly are interested in LBaaS and VPNaaS.
Chalk us up to a vendor trying to implement these. VPNaaS is huge as it
allows customers to non-disruptively attach their organizations to a public
cloud with the same IP space as is the case with AWS. I'd be open to
letting this go IF it being addressed elsewhere in some other manner.

//adam


*Adam Lawson*

AQORN, Inc.
427 North Tatnall Street
Ste. 58461
Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230
Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101
International: +1 302-387-4660
Direct: +1 916-246-2072

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Joseph Bajin  wrote:

> We have actually started to look at VPNaaS as a way to tie two different
> region's Tenant Networks together..  This will hopefully allow us to not
> have to look at users using too many Floating IPs to just support tools and
> products that have issues with Floating IPs.
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Matt Jarvis <
> matt.jar...@datacentred.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> We see FWaaS generally being used by customers with larger deployments,
>> where they want overall firewall rules at the boundary as well as security
>> groups. Since my original post on this thread, I went to look at the
>> numbers - it's actually being used more widely than I originally thought on
>> our platform, including many of our largest customers.
>>
>> On 10 May 2016 at 09:03, Mariano Cunietti  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kyle,
>>>
>>> > I know there are operators relying on these functions, particularly in
>>> the
>>> > public cloud space in Europe, so this would impact those people. I
>>> also know
>>> > this list doesn't necessarily reach all of them either, so I will try
>>> and
>>> > reach out by other means as well, but it would be very useful to try
>>> and get
>>> > a clearer picture of how many people are using VPNaaS and FWaaS. If
>>> you are,
>>> > could you please respond to this thread ?
>>>
>>>
>>> We are using VPNaaS and FWaaS on entercloudsuite.com, on Juno.
>>> With VPNaaS it basically works (or: works basically) but there are some
>>> issues with the configuration of MTU and some other server side
>>> configurations that drop some client connections. I can can provide more
>>> details if you want on a private thread.
>>> With FWaaS we are providing it but we also deprecate it; moreover, it’s
>>> generating a lot of confusion and overlap with Security Groups
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> I'm actually really surprised that people are *using* FWaaS. It's been
>>> marked experimental for over 3 years now, and it only recently in
>>> Liberty received work which made it somewhat useful, which was the
>>> ability to apply a firewall on a specific Neutron router rather than
>>> all tenant routers. FWaaS in production sounds pretty risky to me, but
>>> I supposed that our fault for not being clear on it's readiness.
>>>
>>>
>>> Agree, but the words EXPERIMENTAL and NOT PRODUCTION READY are pretty
>>> visible in the documentation.
>>> So, not your fault at all
>>>
>>>
>>> > If we have metrics that a constituent part of the user community need
>>> these
>>> > functions, then we can try and find a way to help the Neutron team to
>>> cover
>>> > the resourcing gaps.
>>> >
>>> If people are using these, IMHO that's another reason to keep them
>>> around. I've already said that we have at least one large user of VPN,
>>> so that project will continue to be worked on even if it's removed
>>> from Neutron.
>>>
>>>
>>> Here’s what WE’D LOVE to have:
>>>
>>>- VPNaaS
>>>- IDS or some TAPaaS to redirect router traffic to a tenant’s
>>>instance (remember we all sell instances)
>>>- IPS, that is the ability not only to eavesdrop but also to drop
>>>traffic using Snort or better Suricata + ELK (
>>>https://github.com/StamusNetworks/SELKS/blob/master/README.rst)
>>>- FWaaS meant as multiple firewall “flavors”. Lots of customers ask
>>>for PFSense or their own Linux/FreeBSD solution
>>>- Network analytics in general (with InfluxDB or Monasca)
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Mariano
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>>
>>
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

[Matt Jarvis]

We see FWaaS generally being used by customers with larger deployments,
where they want overall firewall rules at the boundary as well as security
groups. Since my original post on this thread, I went to look at the
numbers - it's actually being used more widely than I originally thought on
our platform, including many of our largest customers.

On 10 May 2016 at 09:03, Mariano Cunietti  wrote:

> Hi Kyle,
>
> > I know there are operators relying on these functions, particularly in
> the
> > public cloud space in Europe, so this would impact those people. I also
> know
> > this list doesn't necessarily reach all of them either, so I will try and
> > reach out by other means as well, but it would be very useful to try and
> get
> > a clearer picture of how many people are using VPNaaS and FWaaS. If you
> are,
> > could you please respond to this thread ?
>
>
> We are using VPNaaS and FWaaS on entercloudsuite.com, on Juno.
> With VPNaaS it basically works (or: works basically) but there are some
> issues with the configuration of MTU and some other server side
> configurations that drop some client connections. I can can provide more
> details if you want on a private thread.
> With FWaaS we are providing it but we also deprecate it; moreover, it’s
> generating a lot of confusion and overlap with Security Groups
>
>
> >
> I'm actually really surprised that people are *using* FWaaS. It's been
> marked experimental for over 3 years now, and it only recently in
> Liberty received work which made it somewhat useful, which was the
> ability to apply a firewall on a specific Neutron router rather than
> all tenant routers. FWaaS in production sounds pretty risky to me, but
> I supposed that our fault for not being clear on it's readiness.
>
>
> Agree, but the words EXPERIMENTAL and NOT PRODUCTION READY are pretty
> visible in the documentation.
> So, not your fault at all
>
>
> > If we have metrics that a constituent part of the user community need
> these
> > functions, then we can try and find a way to help the Neutron team to
> cover
> > the resourcing gaps.
> >
> If people are using these, IMHO that's another reason to keep them
> around. I've already said that we have at least one large user of VPN,
> so that project will continue to be worked on even if it's removed
> from Neutron.
>
>
> Here’s what WE’D LOVE to have:
>
>- VPNaaS
>- IDS or some TAPaaS to redirect router traffic to a tenant’s instance
>(remember we all sell instances)
>- IPS, that is the ability not only to eavesdrop but also to drop
>traffic using Snort or better Suricata + ELK (
>https://github.com/StamusNetworks/SELKS/blob/master/README.rst)
>- FWaaS meant as multiple firewall “flavors”. Lots of customers ask
>for PFSense or their own Linux/FreeBSD solution
>- Network analytics in general (with InfluxDB or Monasca)
>
> Thanks
>
> Mariano
>
>
>

-- 
DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

[Mariano Cunietti]

Hi Kyle,

> I know there are operators relying on these functions, particularly in the
> public cloud space in Europe, so this would impact those people. I also know
> this list doesn't necessarily reach all of them either, so I will try and
> reach out by other means as well, but it would be very useful to try and get
> a clearer picture of how many people are using VPNaaS and FWaaS. If you are,
> could you please respond to this thread ?

We are using VPNaaS and FWaaS on entercloudsuite.com, on Juno.
With VPNaaS it basically works (or: works basically) but there are some issues 
with the configuration of MTU and some other server side configurations that 
drop some client connections. I can can provide more details if you want on a 
private thread.
With FWaaS we are providing it but we also deprecate it; moreover, it’s 
generating a lot of confusion and overlap with Security Groups


>
I'm actually really surprised that people are *using* FWaaS. It's been
marked experimental for over 3 years now, and it only recently in
Liberty received work which made it somewhat useful, which was the
ability to apply a firewall on a specific Neutron router rather than
all tenant routers. FWaaS in production sounds pretty risky to me, but
I supposed that our fault for not being clear on it's readiness.

Agree, but the words EXPERIMENTAL and NOT PRODUCTION READY are pretty visible 
in the documentation.
So, not your fault at all


> If we have metrics that a constituent part of the user community need these
> functions, then we can try and find a way to help the Neutron team to cover
> the resourcing gaps.
>
If people are using these, IMHO that's another reason to keep them
around. I've already said that we have at least one large user of VPN,
so that project will continue to be worked on even if it's removed
from Neutron.

Here’s what WE’D LOVE to have:

  *   VPNaaS
  *   IDS or some TAPaaS to redirect router traffic to a tenant’s instance 
(remember we all sell instances)
  *   IPS, that is the ability not only to eavesdrop but also to drop traffic 
using Snort or better Suricata + ELK 
(https://github.com/StamusNetworks/SELKS/blob/master/README.rst)
  *   FWaaS meant as multiple firewall “flavors”. Lots of customers ask for 
PFSense or their own Linux/FreeBSD solution
  *   Network analytics in general (with InfluxDB or Monasca)

Thanks

Mariano


___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

[Kyle Mestery]

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Xav Paice  wrote:
>
>
> On 3 May 2016 at 05:03, Matt Jarvis  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification Kyle.
>>
>> On 2 May 2016 at 14:33, Kyle Mestery  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Matt Jarvis
>>>  wrote:
>>> > I know there are operators relying on these functions, particularly in
>>> > the
>>> > public cloud space in Europe, so this would impact those people.
>>> >
>>> I'm actually really surprised that people are *using* FWaaS. It's been
>>> marked experimental for over 3 years now, and it only recently in
>>> Liberty received work which made it somewhat useful, which was the
>>> ability to apply a firewall on a specific Neutron router rather than
>>> all tenant routers. FWaaS in production sounds pretty risky to me, but
>>> I supposed that our fault for not being clear on it's readiness.
>>>
>
> It might be good at this stage to differentiate between the number of people
> using FWaaS and VPNaaS.  It might be that the FWaaS is much less used than
> VPN, and while we've had a large number of support calls regarding VPNaaS,
> using the service has meant that we can operate as a public cloud despite
> having a very limited amount of IPv4 address space.  Without VPNaaS, we
> would have to make some very difficult changes to our operations and
> probably wind up pouring resources into maintaining something that doesn't
> provide such a nice customer experience.  We've not yet worked out what
> FWaaS is for, and our customers haven't asked us for it.
>
>
>>>
>>> > If we have metrics that a constituent part of the user community need
>>> > these
>>> > functions, then we can try and find a way to help the Neutron team to
>>> > cover
>>> > the resourcing gaps.
>>> >
>>> If people are using these, IMHO that's another reason to keep them
>>> around. I've already said that we have at least one large user of VPN,
>>> so that project will continue to be worked on even if it's removed
>>> from Neutron.
>
>
> I would expect large users of a project to be able to contribute at least
> _some_ resources to keep the code alive.  As a small user of VPNaaS , I
> would also expect to contribute some resources - but we're too small to be a
> significant contributor here.
>
> I'm not sure how OSIC would relate, particularly as this is low/absent in
> their priorities, but if the only barrier to people working on VPNaaS is
> getting a test/dev cluster to work with then surely it's a barrier that can
> be removed.  I would expect the developer time to be the biggest hurdle.
>
I don't think OSIC relates at all. The issue is not test HW or
resources, but actual people writing code, maintaining the code, and
pushing the ball forward.

> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

[Kyle Mestery]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Kosnik, Lubosz  wrote:
> Complete priority list is available on OSIC.org website and 
> currently there is no info about VPNaaS or FWaaS. There are mails added to 
> people responsible for roadmap and when you will have a complete list of 
> people which need this feature you can contact them and discuss about this.
>
Thanks for the offer, but the issue is not HW or resource related, but
people related. We need people who can write code, contribute to the
project around documentation, and help drive it forward.

> Regards,
> Lubosz "diltram" Kosnik
> OSIC team member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 29 Apr 2016, at 9:27 AM, Melvin Hillsman 
> > wrote:
>
> Thank you Matt for the update and call to action.
>
> On Apr 29, 2016, at 9:16 AM, Matt Jarvis 
> > wrote:
>
> Yes the problem is exactly that there is a lack of developer resource on 
> VPNaaS and FWaaS specifically, and probably because these aren't functions 
> many vendors need. We'd like to explore what mechanisms there could be for 
> funding resource, but the most important thing right now is for all those 
> operators who need these functions to make themselves known so there is a 
> metric.
>
> On 29 April 2016 at 08:43, Kosnik, Lubosz 
> > wrote:
> The idea of OSIC clusters is to give people access to multi node environments 
> to test software in scale. There are a lot of thing which brakes in big scale.
> If I'm right the problem is that there is not so many developers which are 
> working on this *asS but please tell if I'm wrong.
>
> Lubosz "diltram" Kosnik
> OSIC team member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 29 Apr 2016, at 8:19 AM, Melvin Hillsman 
> >>
>  wrote:
>
> Please take a moment to reach out to the Neutron team and visit the 
> following. Could this resource be of use to address their concern?
> https://osic.org/clusters
>
> On Apr 29, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Matt Jarvis 
> >>
>  wrote:
>
> As some of you on this list may already know, there are issues in the Neutron 
> team with development resources on VPNaas and FWaaS, and there have been 
> discussions in Austin about deprecating the code from the main Neutron 
> codebase. The decision is currently that the code will remain for another 6 
> months, after which time if no dev resource has emerged, then they will be 
> deprecated.
>
> I know there are operators relying on these functions, particularly in the 
> public cloud space in Europe, so this would impact those people. I also know 
> this list doesn't necessarily reach all of them either, so I will try and 
> reach out by other means as well, but it would be very useful to try and get 
> a clearer picture of how many people are using VPNaaS and FWaaS. If you are, 
> could you please respond to this thread ?
>
> If we have metrics that a constituent part of the user community need these 
> functions, then we can try and find a way to help the Neutron team to cover 
> the resourcing gaps.
>
> Matt
>
> DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
> DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

[Xav Paice]

On 3 May 2016 at 05:03, Matt Jarvis  wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification Kyle.
>
> On 2 May 2016 at 14:33, Kyle Mestery  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Matt Jarvis
>>  wrote:
>> > I know there are operators relying on these functions, particularly in
>> the
>> > public cloud space in Europe, so this would impact those people.
>> >
>> I'm actually really surprised that people are *using* FWaaS. It's been
>> marked experimental for over 3 years now, and it only recently in
>> Liberty received work which made it somewhat useful, which was the
>> ability to apply a firewall on a specific Neutron router rather than
>> all tenant routers. FWaaS in production sounds pretty risky to me, but
>> I supposed that our fault for not being clear on it's readiness.
>>
>>
It might be good at this stage to differentiate between the number of
people using FWaaS and VPNaaS.  It might be that the FWaaS is much less
used than VPN, and while we've had a large number of support calls
regarding VPNaaS, using the service has meant that we can operate as a
public cloud despite having a very limited amount of IPv4 address space.
Without VPNaaS, we would have to make some very difficult changes to our
operations and probably wind up pouring resources into maintaining
something that doesn't provide such a nice customer experience.  We've not
yet worked out what FWaaS is for, and our customers haven't asked us for it.



> > If we have metrics that a constituent part of the user community need
>> these
>> > functions, then we can try and find a way to help the Neutron team to
>> cover
>> > the resourcing gaps.
>> >
>> If people are using these, IMHO that's another reason to keep them
>> around. I've already said that we have at least one large user of VPN,
>> so that project will continue to be worked on even if it's removed
>> from Neutron.
>>
>
I would expect large users of a project to be able to contribute at least
_some_ resources to keep the code alive.  As a small user of VPNaaS , I
would also expect to contribute some resources - but we're too small to be
a significant contributor here.

I'm not sure how OSIC would relate, particularly as this is low/absent in
their priorities, but if the only barrier to people working on VPNaaS is
getting a test/dev cluster to work with then surely it's a barrier that can
be removed.  I would expect the developer time to be the biggest hurdle.
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

[Matt Jarvis]

Thanks for the clarification Kyle.

On 2 May 2016 at 14:33, Kyle Mestery  wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Matt Jarvis
>  wrote:
> > As some of you on this list may already know, there are issues in the
> > Neutron team with development resources on VPNaas and FWaaS, and there
> have
> > been discussions in Austin about deprecating the code from the main
> Neutron
> > codebase. The decision is currently that the code will remain for
> another 6
> > months, after which time if no dev resource has emerged, then they will
> be
> > deprecated.
> >
> To be clear here, these will remain in-tree for the next 6 months.
> Removal (not deprecation) would happen if no progress has been made on
> actually getting contributors for these projects. The code would live
> on, they would just be removed from the governance repository meaning
> they would not be Neutron's anymore.
>
> > I know there are operators relying on these functions, particularly in
> the
> > public cloud space in Europe, so this would impact those people. I also
> know
> > this list doesn't necessarily reach all of them either, so I will try and
> > reach out by other means as well, but it would be very useful to try and
> get
> > a clearer picture of how many people are using VPNaaS and FWaaS. If you
> are,
> > could you please respond to this thread ?
> >
> I'm actually really surprised that people are *using* FWaaS. It's been
> marked experimental for over 3 years now, and it only recently in
> Liberty received work which made it somewhat useful, which was the
> ability to apply a firewall on a specific Neutron router rather than
> all tenant routers. FWaaS in production sounds pretty risky to me, but
> I supposed that our fault for not being clear on it's readiness.
>
> > If we have metrics that a constituent part of the user community need
> these
> > functions, then we can try and find a way to help the Neutron team to
> cover
> > the resourcing gaps.
> >
> If people are using these, IMHO that's another reason to keep them
> around. I've already said that we have at least one large user of VPN,
> so that project will continue to be worked on even if it's removed
> from Neutron.
>
> Thanks,
> Kyle
>
> > Matt
> >
> > DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
> > ___
> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
> > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> >
>

-- 
DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

[Kyle Mestery]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Matt Jarvis
 wrote:
> As some of you on this list may already know, there are issues in the
> Neutron team with development resources on VPNaas and FWaaS, and there have
> been discussions in Austin about deprecating the code from the main Neutron
> codebase. The decision is currently that the code will remain for another 6
> months, after which time if no dev resource has emerged, then they will be
> deprecated.
>
To be clear here, these will remain in-tree for the next 6 months.
Removal (not deprecation) would happen if no progress has been made on
actually getting contributors for these projects. The code would live
on, they would just be removed from the governance repository meaning
they would not be Neutron's anymore.

> I know there are operators relying on these functions, particularly in the
> public cloud space in Europe, so this would impact those people. I also know
> this list doesn't necessarily reach all of them either, so I will try and
> reach out by other means as well, but it would be very useful to try and get
> a clearer picture of how many people are using VPNaaS and FWaaS. If you are,
> could you please respond to this thread ?
>
I'm actually really surprised that people are *using* FWaaS. It's been
marked experimental for over 3 years now, and it only recently in
Liberty received work which made it somewhat useful, which was the
ability to apply a firewall on a specific Neutron router rather than
all tenant routers. FWaaS in production sounds pretty risky to me, but
I supposed that our fault for not being clear on it's readiness.

> If we have metrics that a constituent part of the user community need these
> functions, then we can try and find a way to help the Neutron team to cover
> the resourcing gaps.
>
If people are using these, IMHO that's another reason to keep them
around. I've already said that we have at least one large user of VPN,
so that project will continue to be worked on even if it's removed
from Neutron.

Thanks,
Kyle

> Matt
>
> DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

[Kosnik, Lubosz]

Complete priority list is available on OSIC.org website and 
currently there is no info about VPNaaS or FWaaS. There are mails added to 
people responsible for roadmap and when you will have a complete list of people 
which need this feature you can contact them and discuss about this.

Regards,
Lubosz "diltram" Kosnik
OSIC team member

Sent from my iPhone

On 29 Apr 2016, at 9:27 AM, Melvin Hillsman 
> wrote:

Thank you Matt for the update and call to action.

On Apr 29, 2016, at 9:16 AM, Matt Jarvis 
> wrote:

Yes the problem is exactly that there is a lack of developer resource on VPNaaS 
and FWaaS specifically, and probably because these aren't functions many 
vendors need. We'd like to explore what mechanisms there could be for funding 
resource, but the most important thing right now is for all those operators who 
need these functions to make themselves known so there is a metric.

On 29 April 2016 at 08:43, Kosnik, Lubosz 
> wrote:
The idea of OSIC clusters is to give people access to multi node environments 
to test software in scale. There are a lot of thing which brakes in big scale.
If I'm right the problem is that there is not so many developers which are 
working on this *asS but please tell if I'm wrong.

Lubosz "diltram" Kosnik
OSIC team member

Sent from my iPhone

On 29 Apr 2016, at 8:19 AM, Melvin Hillsman 
>>
 wrote:

Please take a moment to reach out to the Neutron team and visit the following. 
Could this resource be of use to address their concern?
https://osic.org/clusters

On Apr 29, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Matt Jarvis 
>>
 wrote:

As some of you on this list may already know, there are issues in the Neutron 
team with development resources on VPNaas and FWaaS, and there have been 
discussions in Austin about deprecating the code from the main Neutron 
codebase. The decision is currently that the code will remain for another 6 
months, after which time if no dev resource has emerged, then they will be 
deprecated.

I know there are operators relying on these functions, particularly in the 
public cloud space in Europe, so this would impact those people. I also know 
this list doesn't necessarily reach all of them either, so I will try and reach 
out by other means as well, but it would be very useful to try and get a 
clearer picture of how many people are using VPNaaS and FWaaS. If you are, 
could you please respond to this thread ?

If we have metrics that a constituent part of the user community need these 
functions, then we can try and find a way to help the Neutron team to cover the 
resourcing gaps.

Matt

DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators


DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

[Melvin Hillsman]

Thank you Matt for the update and call to action.

> On Apr 29, 2016, at 9:16 AM, Matt Jarvis  
> wrote:
> 
> Yes the problem is exactly that there is a lack of developer resource on 
> VPNaaS and FWaaS specifically, and probably because these aren't functions 
> many vendors need. We'd like to explore what mechanisms there could be for 
> funding resource, but the most important thing right now is for all those 
> operators who need these functions to make themselves known so there is a 
> metric. 
> 
>> On 29 April 2016 at 08:43, Kosnik, Lubosz  wrote:
>> The idea of OSIC clusters is to give people access to multi node 
>> environments to test software in scale. There are a lot of thing which 
>> brakes in big scale.
>> If I'm right the problem is that there is not so many developers which are 
>> working on this *asS but please tell if I'm wrong.
>> 
>> Lubosz "diltram" Kosnik
>> OSIC team member
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On 29 Apr 2016, at 8:19 AM, Melvin Hillsman 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> Please take a moment to reach out to the Neutron team and visit the 
>> following. Could this resource be of use to address their concern?
>> https://osic.org/clusters
>> 
>> On Apr 29, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Matt Jarvis 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> As some of you on this list may already know, there are issues in the 
>> Neutron team with development resources on VPNaas and FWaaS, and there have 
>> been discussions in Austin about deprecating the code from the main Neutron 
>> codebase. The decision is currently that the code will remain for another 6 
>> months, after which time if no dev resource has emerged, then they will be 
>> deprecated.
>> 
>> I know there are operators relying on these functions, particularly in the 
>> public cloud space in Europe, so this would impact those people. I also know 
>> this list doesn't necessarily reach all of them either, so I will try and 
>> reach out by other means as well, but it would be very useful to try and get 
>> a clearer picture of how many people are using VPNaaS and FWaaS. If you are, 
>> could you please respond to this thread ?
>> 
>> If we have metrics that a constituent part of the user community need these 
>> functions, then we can try and find a way to help the Neutron team to cover 
>> the resourcing gaps.
>> 
>> Matt
>> 
>> DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
>> ___
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>> ___
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> 
> 
> DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

[Matt Jarvis]

Yes the problem is exactly that there is a lack of developer resource on
VPNaaS and FWaaS specifically, and probably because these aren't functions
many vendors need. We'd like to explore what mechanisms there could be for
funding resource, but the most important thing right now is for all those
operators who need these functions to make themselves known so there is a
metric.

On 29 April 2016 at 08:43, Kosnik, Lubosz  wrote:

> The idea of OSIC clusters is to give people access to multi node
> environments to test software in scale. There are a lot of thing which
> brakes in big scale.
> If I'm right the problem is that there is not so many developers which are
> working on this *asS but please tell if I'm wrong.
>
> Lubosz "diltram" Kosnik
> OSIC team member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 29 Apr 2016, at 8:19 AM, Melvin Hillsman > wrote:
>
> Please take a moment to reach out to the Neutron team and visit the
> following. Could this resource be of use to address their concern?
> https://osic.org/clusters
>
> On Apr 29, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Matt Jarvis  > wrote:
>
> As some of you on this list may already know, there are issues in the
> Neutron team with development resources on VPNaas and FWaaS, and there have
> been discussions in Austin about deprecating the code from the main Neutron
> codebase. The decision is currently that the code will remain for another 6
> months, after which time if no dev resource has emerged, then they will be
> deprecated.
>
> I know there are operators relying on these functions, particularly in the
> public cloud space in Europe, so this would impact those people. I also
> know this list doesn't necessarily reach all of them either, so I will try
> and reach out by other means as well, but it would be very useful to try
> and get a clearer picture of how many people are using VPNaaS and FWaaS. If
> you are, could you please respond to this thread ?
>
> If we have metrics that a constituent part of the user community need
> these functions, then we can try and find a way to help the Neutron team to
> cover the resourcing gaps.
>
> Matt
>
> DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>

-- 
DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

[Melvin Hillsman]

Thanks for the feedback Lubosz. Is OSIC as well to be a resource for in demand 
(enterprise) features that the community does not have available resources 
(developers) to work on? Are there existing alternatives to these two (Octavia) 
which will pick up where these are being left and therefore there is not a high 
demand?

> On Apr 29, 2016, at 8:43 AM, Kosnik, Lubosz  wrote:
> 
> The idea of OSIC clusters is to give people access to multi node environments 
> to test software in scale. There are a lot of thing which brakes in big scale.
> If I'm right the problem is that there is not so many developers which are 
> working on this *asS but please tell if I'm wrong. 
> 
> Lubosz "diltram" Kosnik
> OSIC team member
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 29 Apr 2016, at 8:19 AM, Melvin Hillsman  wrote:
> 
>> Please take a moment to reach out to the Neutron team and visit the 
>> following. Could this resource be of use to address their concern?
>> https://osic.org/clusters
>> 
>> On Apr 29, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Matt Jarvis  
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> As some of you on this list may already know, there are issues in the 
>>> Neutron team with development resources on VPNaas and FWaaS, and there have 
>>> been discussions in Austin about deprecating the code from the main Neutron 
>>> codebase. The decision is currently that the code will remain for another 6 
>>> months, after which time if no dev resource has emerged, then they will be 
>>> deprecated.
>>> 
>>> I know there are operators relying on these functions, particularly in the 
>>> public cloud space in Europe, so this would impact those people. I also 
>>> know this list doesn't necessarily reach all of them either, so I will try 
>>> and reach out by other means as well, but it would be very useful to try 
>>> and get a clearer picture of how many people are using VPNaaS and FWaaS. If 
>>> you are, could you please respond to this thread ? 
>>> 
>>> If we have metrics that a constituent part of the user community need these 
>>> functions, then we can try and find a way to help the Neutron team to cover 
>>> the resourcing gaps. 
>>> 
>>> Matt
>>> 
>>> DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
>>> ___
>>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>>> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>> ___
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

[Kosnik, Lubosz]

The idea of OSIC clusters is to give people access to multi node environments 
to test software in scale. There are a lot of thing which brakes in big scale.
If I'm right the problem is that there is not so many developers which are 
working on this *asS but please tell if I'm wrong.

Lubosz "diltram" Kosnik
OSIC team member

Sent from my iPhone

On 29 Apr 2016, at 8:19 AM, Melvin Hillsman 
> wrote:

Please take a moment to reach out to the Neutron team and visit the following. 
Could this resource be of use to address their concern?
https://osic.org/clusters

On Apr 29, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Matt Jarvis 
> wrote:

As some of you on this list may already know, there are issues in the Neutron 
team with development resources on VPNaas and FWaaS, and there have been 
discussions in Austin about deprecating the code from the main Neutron 
codebase. The decision is currently that the code will remain for another 6 
months, after which time if no dev resource has emerged, then they will be 
deprecated.

I know there are operators relying on these functions, particularly in the 
public cloud space in Europe, so this would impact those people. I also know 
this list doesn't necessarily reach all of them either, so I will try and reach 
out by other means as well, but it would be very useful to try and get a 
clearer picture of how many people are using VPNaaS and FWaaS. If you are, 
could you please respond to this thread ?

If we have metrics that a constituent part of the user community need these 
functions, then we can try and find a way to help the Neutron team to cover the 
resourcing gaps.

Matt

DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

[Melvin Hillsman]

Please take a moment to reach out to the Neutron team and visit the following. 
Could this resource be of use to address their concern?
https://osic.org/clusters

> On Apr 29, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Matt Jarvis  
> wrote:
> 
> As some of you on this list may already know, there are issues in the Neutron 
> team with development resources on VPNaas and FWaaS, and there have been 
> discussions in Austin about deprecating the code from the main Neutron 
> codebase. The decision is currently that the code will remain for another 6 
> months, after which time if no dev resource has emerged, then they will be 
> deprecated.
> 
> I know there are operators relying on these functions, particularly in the 
> public cloud space in Europe, so this would impact those people. I also know 
> this list doesn't necessarily reach all of them either, so I will try and 
> reach out by other means as well, but it would be very useful to try and get 
> a clearer picture of how many people are using VPNaaS and FWaaS. If you are, 
> could you please respond to this thread ? 
> 
> If we have metrics that a constituent part of the user community need these 
> functions, then we can try and find a way to help the Neutron team to cover 
> the resourcing gaps. 
> 
> Matt
> 
> DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators