[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Loadbalancer instance design.
SamuelB at Radware.com
Mon Nov 18 08:09:23 UTC 2013
Eugene and Mark,
We get interest in the current OpenStack LBaaS solution.
Backward compatibility should be considered as part of any feature we add for icehouse.
I think that the any such BP should first address the best way to implement the feature (as Eugene did) but then also solve the backward compatibility issue as well.
From: Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikanorov at mirantis.com]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 6:52 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Loadbalancer instance design.
> How do you plan to handle API compatibility?
The new API is not compatible and i think there was a consensus that such change is needed and incompatibility is justified.
> Is an extension for each (eg. add router_id to a loadblancer resource) necessary ?
Basically, yes, there should be an extension for each kind of binding with the exception that binding to providers is a part of lbaas API.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Itsuro ODA <oda at valinux.co.jp<mailto:oda at valinux.co.jp>> wrote:
> 2. Loadbalancer can be used to bind configuration to a provider, device, agent (host), router
What's the plan about this ?
Is an extension for each (eg. add router_id to a loadblancer resource) necessary ?
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:14:47 +0400
Eugene Nikanorov <enikanorov at mirantis.com<mailto:enikanorov at mirantis.com>> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I've created a brief description of this feature.
> You can find it here:
> I would appreciate any comments/ideas about this.
Itsuro ODA <oda at valinux.co.jp<mailto:oda at valinux.co.jp>>
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev