Open Stack

On 03/11/2013 12:10 PM, Ahn Jaesuk wrote:
> Please see the inline. 
> 
> 
> Mar 5, 2013, 5:58 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> 작성:
> 
>> 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
>>>    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
>>
>> This last one is the most needed, IMHO. Without a migration path from
>> multi-host VLAN to software-defined networking in Quantum, we are stuck
>> using nova-network and nova-manage network create.
> 
> 
> +1 here. 
> I have to agree that this last one is the most needed in our case as well. 
> After realizing this "simulated multi-host with colocated mode" is not included in grizzly, I would be highly interested in actively participating in any effort on making the last one possible (multi-host like l3 + dhcp model). 
> (BTW, this is Jay Ahn from Korea Telecom) 

It was in the "Nova Parity in Grizzly" list, though.

>From some other threads, it sounds like it was implemented in:

    https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-scheduler

and if that's the case, should this blueprint be closed to avoid confusion?

    https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-multihost

Also, are there any docs on this new stuff?

-- 
Russell Bryant