On Mon Dec 01 2014 at 2:06:18 PM henry hly wrote:
> My suggestion is that starting with LB and VPN as a trial, which can
> never be distributed.
>
.. Sure they can! Loadbalancing in particular _should_ be distributed if
both the clients and backends are in the same cluster...
(I agree with yo
FWaas is typically classified to L4-L7. But if they are developed
standalone, it would be very difficult for implementing with a
distributed manner. For example, with W-E traffic control in DVR mode,
we can't rely on a external python client rest api call, the policy
execution module must be loaded
On 19 November 2014 at 11:31, Mark McClain wrote:
> All-
>
> Over the last several months, the members of the Networking Program have
> been discussing ways to improve the management of our program. When the
> Quantum project was initially launched, we envisioned a combined service
> that include
On 11/19/14, 5:02 PM, "Kyle Mestery" wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Doug Wiegley
>wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo
>>>cycle.
>>
>> One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different
>> priorities and velocities.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 11/20/2014 05:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Kyle Mestery wrote:
>>> We're in the process of writing a spec for this now, but we first
>>> wanted community feedback. Also, it's on the TC agenda for next week I
>>> believe, so once we get
On 11/20/2014 05:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Kyle Mestery wrote:
>> We're in the process of writing a spec for this now, but we first
>> wanted community feedback. Also, it's on the TC agenda for next week I
>> believe, so once we get signoff from the TC, we'll propose the spec.
>
> Frankly, I
Kyle Mestery wrote:
> We're in the process of writing a spec for this now, but we first
> wanted community feedback. Also, it's on the TC agenda for next week I
> believe, so once we get signoff from the TC, we'll propose the spec.
Frankly, I don't think the TC really has to sign-off on what seems
While I agree that a unified endpoint could be a good solution for now, I
think that the easiest way of doing this would be by implementing it as an
external Neutron service.
Using python entry_points, the advanced service extensions can be loaded in
Neutron just like we do today (using neutron.co
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle.
>
> One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different
> priorities and velocities. Wouldn’t that be easier to track/manage as
> separate laun
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> Mark, Kyle,
>
> What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about
> this initiative? Blueprint spec, wiki page, or something else?
>
We're in the process of writing a spec for this now, but we first
wanted community feedba
ember 18, 2014 at 4:08 PM
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into
>> separate repositories
>>
>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Armando M. wrote:
questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into
separate repositories
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:04 PM, henry hly wrote:
> Is FWaas L2/3 or L4/7?
>
Thats a good question, and what has been asked here in the context of VPNaaS as
well. Hence the pr
le think?
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> —Hanif.
>>>
>>> From: "Paul Michali (pcm)"
>>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>>
>>> Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 at 4:08 PM
>
tack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>
>> Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 at 4:08 PM
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into
for usage questions)"
>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into
> separate repositories
>
> On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>
> Mark, Kyle,
>
> What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details ab
ts.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into
separate repositories
On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Armando M.
mailto:arma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Mark, Kyle,
What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about this
in
On 18 November 2014 15:33, Mark McClain wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Doug Hellmann
> wrote:
> >
> > There would not be a service or REST API associated with the Advanced
> Services code base? Would the REST API to talk to those services be part of
> the Neutron repository?
> >
> > D
On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> Mark, Kyle,
>
> What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about this
> initiative? Blueprint spec, wiki page, or something else?
>
> One thing I personally found useful about the spec approach adopted in [1],
> was that
Mark, Kyle,
What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about
this initiative? Blueprint spec, wiki page, or something else?
One thing I personally found useful about the spec approach adopted in [1],
was that we could quickly and effectively incorporate community feedback;
> On Nov 18, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> There would not be a service or REST API associated with the Advanced
> Services code base? Would the REST API to talk to those services be part of
> the Neutron repository?
>
> Doug
We had considered having a standalone REST service, b
Hi,
> so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle.
One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different priorities
and velocities. Wouldn’t that be easier to track/manage as separate launchpad
projects and specs repos, irrespective of who is approvin
>
> There would not be a service or REST API associated with the Advanced
> Services code base? Would the REST API to talk to those services be part of
> the Neutron repository?
This is a good question.
Also, I would love to have more details about the following point:
- The Advance Service Lib
On Nov 18, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Mark McClain wrote:
> All-
>
> Over the last several months, the members of the Networking Program have been
> discussing ways to improve the management of our program. When the Quantum
> project was initially launched, we envisioned a combined service that
> in
All-
Over the last several months, the members of the Networking Program have been
discussing ways to improve the management of our program. When the Quantum
project was initially launched, we envisioned a combined service that included
all things network related. This vision served us well i
24 matches
Mail list logo
