Open Stack

Hi Kenichi,

Ah yes, it was decided at the mid cycle meetup to delay the nova network
changes
until Juno. Sorry I should have told you sooner.

Regards,

Chris



On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Kenichi Oomichi
<oomichi at mxs.nes.nec.co.jp>wrote:

>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Is it OK to postpone nova-network v3 APIs until Juno release?
> I guess that because some nova-network v3 API patches are abandoned today.
> I'd just like to make it clear.
>
>
> Thanks
> Ken'ichi Ohmichi
>
> ---
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christopher Yeoh [mailto:cbkyeoh at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 8:37 PM
> > To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Putting nova-network support into
> the V3 API
> >
> > On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 11:37:29 +0100
> > Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Joe Gordon <joe.gordon0 at gmail.com
> > > > <mailto:joe.gordon0 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> John and I discussed a third possibility:
> > > >>
> > > >> nova-network v3 should be an extension, so the idea was to: Make
> > > >> nova-network API a subset of neturon (instead of them adopting our
> > > >> API we adopt theirs). And we could release v3 without nova network
> > > >> in Icehouse and add the nova-network extension in Juno.
> > > >
> > > > This would actually be my preferred approach if we can get consensus
> > > > around this. It takes a lot of pressure off this late in the cycle
> > > > and there's less risk around having to live with a nova-network API
> > > > in V3 that still has some rough edges around it. I imagine it will
> > > > be quite a while before we can deprecate the V2 API so IMO going
> > > > one cycle without nova-network support is not a big thing.
> > >
> > > So user story would be, in icehouse release (nothing deprecated yet):
> > > v2 + nova-net: supported
> > > v2 + neutron: supported
> > > v3 + nova-net: n/a
> > > v3 + neutron: supported
> > >
> > > And for juno:
> > > v2 + nova-net: works, v2 could be deprecated
> > > v2 + neutron: works, v2 could be deprecated
> > > v3 + nova-net: works through extension, nova-net could be deprecated
> >
> > So to be clear the idea I think is that nova-net of "v3 + nova-net"
> > would look like the neutron api. Eg nova-net API from v2 would look
> > quite different to 'nova-net' API from v3. To minimise the transition
> > pain for users on V3 moving to a neutron based cloud. Though those
> > moving from v2 + nova-net to v3 + nova-net would have to cope with more
> changes.
> >
> > > v3 + neutron: supported (encouraged future-proof combo)
> > >
> > > That doesn't sound too bad to me. Lets us finalize v3 core in icehouse
> > > and keeps a lot of simplification / deprecation options open for Juno,
> > > depending on how the nova-net vs. neutron story pans out then.
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140212/955ab5b5/attachment.html>