Open Stack

On 03/04/2013 01:19 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com
> <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com
>     <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>         One area that I
>         think could use some additional attention is the collaboration
>         between
>         Nova and Quantum.  I would like to step up the effort to get to
>         where we
>         are no longer maintaining two networking stacks.
> 
> 
>     +10
> 
>     Instead of focusing on the ability to entirely replace internal Nova
>     networking with Quantum, unfortunately feature development in
>     Quantum has been the focus over the last two release cycles.
> 
> 
> I'm actually surprised to hear this comment.  If you look at the 'high'
> or 'critical' features for quantum in folsom or grizzly, reaching full
> parity with nova use cases has been the highest priority. 
> 
> Nova Parity In Folsom: 
> - IPAM
> - L3 + floating IPs
> - basic metadata 
> 
> Nova Parity In Grizzly: 
> - security groups 
> - better metadata integration
> - multi-host like L3 + dhcp model
> 
> The only thing I see as missing is a cloudpipe VPN equivalent, and to be
> honest the reason for this is that no one seems very interested in using
> this capability. It was targeted for Folsom, but no one showed up to
> write any code.  I've heard a few people coordinating on plans for
> Havana for VPN, so achieving it seems more likely.  

This progress is great.  It seems like we should be considering making
Quantum the default for Havana if the VPN functionality isn't widely
used.  What do you think?

Also, what do you think of the idea of having some design summit time
where we make sure that Nova and Quantum people can be in the same room
at the same time?  At a minimum, we could have one session on "Making
Quantum the default in Nova".  If there are more Nova<->Quantum
integration topics, we could extend the time.

> Are there other key gaps you see?  When I had talked with Vish about
> this in the past, the model was to freeze nova-network to allow Quantum
> to reach parity, and then push people away from nova-network toward
> Quantum. 

What you have listed already are all of the things I knew about.

I'm not sure if freezing nova-network has really happened.  There isn't
big feature development going on, but there has certainly been an
ongoing noticeable maintenance burden just supporting what we have.  I'd
like to kill that as soon as we can.  I'm sure you wouldn't mind that
either!

-- 
Russell Bryant