[openstack-dev] VPC Proposal

Rudra Rugge rrugge at juniper.net
Mon Feb 17 19:29:52 UTC 2014


JC,

BP has been updated with the correct links. I have removed the abandoned
review #3.
Please review #1 and #2.

1. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/40071/

   This is the active review.
   There is one comment by Sean regarding
   adding a knob when Neutron is not used.
   That will be addressed with the next path.
2. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/53171
   This is the active review for tempest
   test cases as requested by Joe Gordon.
   Currently abandoned until #1 goes through.
3. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/53171
   This review is not active. It was accidentally submitted with a new
change-id. 

Regards,
Rudra

On 2/16/14, 9:25 AM, "Martin, JC" <jch.martin at gmail.com> wrote:

>Harshad,
>
>I tried to find some discussion around this blueprint.
>Could you provide us with some notes or threads  ?
>
>Also, about the code review you mention. which one are you talking about :
>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/40071/
>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/49470/
>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/53171
>
>because they are all abandoned.
>
>Could you point me to the code, and update the BP because it seems that
>the links are not correct.
>
>Thanks,
>
>JC
>On Feb 16, 2014, at 9:04 AM, "Allamaraju, Subbu" <subbu at subbu.org> wrote:
>
>> Harshad,
>> 
>> Thanks for clarifying.
>> 
>>> We started looking at this as some our customers/partners were
>>>interested in get AWS API compatibility. We have this blueprint and
>>>code review pending for long time now. We will know based on this
>>>thread wether the community is interested. But I assumed that community
>>>was interested as the blueprint was approved and code review has no
>>>-1(s) for long time now.
>> 
>> Makes sense. I would leave it to others on this list to chime in if
>>there is sufficient interest or not.
>> 
>>> To clarify, a clear incremental path from an AWS compatible API to an
>>>OpenStack model is not clear.
>>> 
>>> In my mind AWS compatible API does not need new openstack model. As
>>>more discussion happen on JC's proposal and implementation becomes
>>>clear we will know how incremental is the path. But at high level there
>>>two major differences
>>> 1. New first class object will be introduced which effect all
>>>components
>>> 2. more than one project can be supported within VPC.
>>> But it does not change AWS API(s). So even in JC(s) model if you want
>>>AWS API then we will have to keep VPC to project mapping 1:1, since the
>>>API will not take both VPC ID and project ID.
>>> 
>>> As more users want to migrate from AWS or IaaS providers who want
>>>compete with AWS should be interested in this compatibility.
>> 
>> IMHO that's a tough sell. Though an AWS compatible API does not need an
>>OpenStack abstraction, we would end up with two independent ways of
>>doing similar things. That would OpenStack repeating itself!
>> 
>> Subbu
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>





More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list