Open Stack

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

I'm definitely in favor of this, and hopefully the Quantum PTL for havana
will be as well :)



>
> > 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!
>

Yup, on the same page there :)

Dan



>
> --
> Russell Bryant
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Wendlandt
Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com
twitter: danwendlandt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130304/2019b4ed/attachment-0001.html>