[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Unanswered questions in object model refactor blueprint

Eugene Nikanorov enikanorov at mirantis.com
Mon Jun 2 21:35:51 UTC 2014


I'm actually talking about patch for neutron project itself.
That should be either something similar to
neutron/extensions/loadbalancer.py or a patch for this file.
Anyway the API docs that i've seen in neutron-specs just copy the REST
resource definitions from proposed code,
that's why I'm suggesting to use a code for API reference.

If you look closely at how API is defined you'll see it's quite
self-explaining.

Thanks,
Eugene.

PS. Just an example:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/60207/17/neutron/extensions/loadbalancer.py


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Stephen Balukoff <sbalukoff at bluebox.net>
wrote:

> Hi Eugene,
>
> Sounds good. Should I put it in neutron-specs/specs/juno or somewhere else?
>
> Thanks,
> Stephen
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Eugene Nikanorov <enikanorov at mirantis.com
> > wrote:
>
>> > Where do we actually keep the authoritative source for API
>> documentation?
>> I think it makes sense to actually put it in the code on gerrit and
>> discuss API details there, it might save another step.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eugene.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Stephen Balukoff <sbalukoff at bluebox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Brandon,
>>>
>>> Apologies-- this slipped my mind last week. In any case yes, unless
>>> you've already got something in the works, I'd be happy to take this on.
>>> But I will need a little direction here:  Where do we actually keep the
>>> authoritative source for API documentation?  Should I just make this a text
>>> document that lives in the neutron-specs repository?
>>>
>>> Also, I'm assuming we want to start with where we left off on our
>>> mailing list / google doc discussion (with changes from the summit, ie.
>>> loadbalancer as root) made part of this specification?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Brandon Logan <
>>> brandon.logan at rackspace.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stephen,
>>>>
>>>> Were you still planning on doing the second blueprint that will
>>>> implement the new API calls?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Brandon
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2014-05-29 at 22:36 -0700, Bo Lin wrote:
>>>> > Hi Brandon and Stephen,
>>>> > Really thanks for your responses and i got to know it.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks!
>>>> > ---Bo
>>>> >
>>>> > ______________________________________________________________________
>>>> > From: "Brandon Logan" <brandon.logan at RACKSPACE.COM>
>>>> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>>> > <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>>> > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 1:17:57 PM
>>>> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Unanswered questions in
>>>> > object model refactor blueprint
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Hi Bo,
>>>> > Sorry, I forgot to respond but yes what Stephen said lol :)
>>>> >
>>>> > ______________________________________________________________________
>>>> > From: Stephen Balukoff [sbalukoff at bluebox.net]
>>>> > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 10:42 PM
>>>> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Unanswered questions in
>>>> > object model refactor blueprint
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Hi Bo--
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Haproxy is able to have IPv4 front-ends with IPv6 back-ends (and visa
>>>> > versa) because it actually initiates a separate TCP connection between
>>>> > the front end client and the back-end server. The front-end thinks
>>>> > haproxy is the server, and the back-end thinks haproxy is the client.
>>>> > In practice, therefore, its totally possible to have an IPv6 front-end
>>>> > and IPv4 back-end with haproxy (for both http and generic TCP service
>>>> > types).
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I think this is similarly true for vendor appliances that are capable
>>>> > of doing IPv6, and are also initiating new TCP connections from the
>>>> > appliance to the back-end.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Obviously, the above won't work if your load balancer implementation
>>>> > is doing something "transparent" on the network layer like LVM load
>>>> > balancing.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Stephen
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Bo Lin <linb at vmware.com> wrote:
>>>> >         Hi Brandon,
>>>> >
>>>> >         I have one question. If we support LoadBalancer to Listener
>>>> >         relationship M:N, then one listener with IPV4 service members
>>>> >         backend may be shared by a loadbalancer instance with IPV6
>>>> >         forntend. Does it mean we also need to provide IPV6 - IPV4
>>>> >         port forwarding functions in LBaaS services products? Does
>>>> >         iptables or most LBaaS services products such as haproxy or so
>>>> >         on provide such function? Or I am just wrong in some technique
>>>> >         details on these LBaaS products.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         Thanks!
>>>> >
>>>> >         ______________________________________________________________
>>>> >         From: "Vijay B" <os.vbvs at gmail.com>
>>>> >
>>>> >         To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
>>>> >         questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>>> >
>>>> >         Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:18:42 AM
>>>> >
>>>> >         Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Unanswered
>>>> >         questions in object model refactor blueprint
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         Hi Brandon!
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         Please see inline..
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Brandon Logan
>>>> >         <brandon.logan at rackspace.com> wrote:
>>>> >                 Hi Vijay,
>>>> >
>>>> >                 On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 16:27 -0700, Vijay B wrote:
>>>> >                 > Hi Brandon,
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 > The current reviews of the schema itself are
>>>> >                 absolutely valid and
>>>> >                 > necessary, and must go on. However, the place of
>>>> >                 implementation of
>>>> >                 > this schema needs to be clarified. Rather than make
>>>> >                 any changes
>>>> >                 > whatsoever to the existing neutron db schema for
>>>> >                 LBaaS, this new db
>>>> >                 > schema outlined needs to be implemented for a
>>>> >                 separate LBaaS core
>>>> >                 > service.
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >
>>>> >                 Are you suggesting a separate lbaas database from the
>>>> >                 neutron database?
>>>> >                 If not, then I could use some clarification. If so,
>>>> >                 I'd advocate against
>>>> >                 that right now because there's just too many things
>>>> >                 that would need to
>>>> >                 be changed.  Later, when LBaaS becomes its own service
>>>> >                 then yeah that
>>>> >                 will need to happen.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         v> Ok, so as I understand it, in this scheme, there is no new
>>>> >         schema or db, there will be a new set of tables resident in
>>>> >         neutron_db schema itself, alongside legacy lbaas tables. Let's
>>>> >         consider a rough view of the implementation.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         Layer 1 - We'll have a new lbaas v3.0 api in neutron, with the
>>>> >         current lbaas service plugin having to support it in addition
>>>> >         to the legacy lbaas extensions that it already supports. We'll
>>>> >         need to put in new code anyway that will process the v3.0
>>>> >         lbaas api no matter what our approach is.
>>>> >         Layer 2 - Management code that will take care of updating the
>>>> >         db with entities in pending_create, then invoking the right
>>>> >         provider driver, choosing/scheduling the plugin drivers or the
>>>> >         agent drivers, invoking them, getting the results, and
>>>> >         updating the db.
>>>> >         Layer 3 - The drivers themselves (either plugin drivers (like
>>>> >         the HAProxy namespace driver/Netscaler) or plugin drivers +
>>>> >         agent drivers).
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         While having the new tables sit alongside the legacy tables is
>>>> >         one way to implement the changes, I don't see how this
>>>> >         approach leads to a lesser amount of changes overall. Layer 2
>>>> >         above will be the major place where changes can be
>>>> >         complicated. Also, it will be confusing to have two sets of
>>>> >         lbaas tables in the same schema.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         I don't want a separate lbaas database under neutron, and
>>>> >         neither do I want it within neutron. I'm not suggesting that
>>>> >         we create a db schema alone, I'm saying we must build it with
>>>> >         the new LBaaS service (just like neutron itself when it got
>>>> >         created). If we don't do this now, we'll end up reimplementing
>>>> >         the logic implemented in neutron for the new lbaas v3.0 API
>>>> >         all over again for the new core LBaaS service. We'd rather do
>>>> >         it in the new one in one effort.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         I could be missing some constraints that drive taking the
>>>> >         former approach - please help me understand those - I don't
>>>> >         want to be discounting any one approach without thorough
>>>> >         consideration. Right now, it looks to me like this approach is
>>>> >         being taken only to accommodate the HAProxy namespace driver.
>>>> >         Really that is the only driver which seems to be very
>>>> >         intertwined with neutron in the way it uses namespaces.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 > What we should be providing in neutron is a switch
>>>> >                 (a global conf)
>>>> >                 > that can be set to instruct neutron to do one of two
>>>> >                 things:
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 > 1. Use the existing neutron LBaaS API, with the
>>>> >                 backend being the
>>>> >                 > existing neutron LBaaS db schema. This is the status
>>>> >                 quo.
>>>> >                 > 2. Use the existing neutron LBaaS API, with the
>>>> >                 backend being the new
>>>> >                 > LBaaS service. This will invoke calls not to
>>>> >                 neutron's current LBaaS
>>>> >                 > code at all, rather, it will call into a new set of
>>>> >                 proxy "backend"
>>>> >                 > code in neutron that will translate the older LBaaS
>>>> >                 API calls into the
>>>> >                 > newer REST calls serviced by the new LBaaS service,
>>>> >                 which will write
>>>> >                 > down these details accordingly in its new db schema.
>>>> >                 As long as the
>>>> >                 > request and response objects to legacy neutron LBaaS
>>>> >                 calls are
>>>> >                 > preserved as is, there should be no issues. Writing
>>>> >                 unit tests should
>>>> >                 > also be comparatively more straightforward, and old
>>>> >                 functional tests
>>>> >                 > can be retained, and newer ones will not clash with
>>>> >                 legacy code.
>>>> >                 > Legacy code itself will work, having not been
>>>> >                 touched at all. The
>>>> >                 > blueprint for the db schema that you have referenced
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 (
>>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89903/5/specs/juno/lbaas-api-and-objmodel-improvement.rst)
>>>> should be implemented for this new LBaaS service, post reviews.
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >
>>>> >                 I think the point of this blueprint is to get the API
>>>> >                 and object model
>>>> >                 less confusing for the Neutron LBaaS service plugin.
>>>> >                  I think it's too
>>>> >                 early to create an LBaaS service because we have not
>>>> >                 yet cleaned up the
>>>> >                 tight integration points between Neutron LBaaS and
>>>> >                 LBaaS.  Creating a
>>>> >                 new service would require only API interactions
>>>> >                 between Neutron and this
>>>> >                 LBaaS service, which currently is not possible due to
>>>> >                 these tight
>>>> >                 integration points.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         v> The tight integration points between LBaaS and neutron that
>>>> >         I see are:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         1. The usage of namespaces.
>>>> >         2.  L2 and L3 plumbing within the namespaces and tracking them
>>>> >         in the neutron and lbaas tables,
>>>> >         3. Plugin driver and agent driver scheduling
>>>> >         framework/mechanism for LB drivers.
>>>> >         4. The way drivers directly update the neutron db, which I
>>>> >         think makes for a lack of clear functional demarcation.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         Regardless of how we use the new API and db model, will
>>>> >         namespaces be used? If they still need to be supported, the
>>>> >         tight integration isn't going to go anywhere.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         This is why I think it will be best to keep the legacy drivers
>>>> >         within neutron, and not give an option to newer deployments to
>>>> >         use that concurrently with the new lbaas core service. The
>>>> >         changes will be lesser this way because we won't touch legacy
>>>> >         code.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         While I fully understand that we're trying to change the way
>>>> >         we look at the lbaas deployments, and the db object model is
>>>> >         an effort towards that, we need to ensure that the execution
>>>> >         is kept elegant as well. For drivers for lb solutions like f5
>>>> >         or Netscaler, these pain points can be done away with because
>>>> >         they do their own network provisioning and we keep track of
>>>> >         them only to clean up (especially for virtual appliance
>>>> >         solutions).
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         It will however mean that we'll have the additional task of
>>>> >         implementing the new core service before we can use the new db
>>>> >         object model. I say we should just go for that effort and make
>>>> >         it happen.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 > The third option would be to turn off neutron LBaaS
>>>> >                 API, and use the
>>>> >                 > new LBaaS core service directly, but for this we can
>>>> >                 simply disable
>>>> >                 > neutron lbaas, and don't need a config parameter in
>>>> >                 neutron.
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 > Implementing this db schema within neutron instead
>>>> >                 will be not just
>>>> >                 > complicated, but a huge effort that will go waste in
>>>> >                 future once the
>>>> >                 > new LBaaS service is implemented. Also, migration
>>>> >                 will unnecessarily
>>>> >                 > retain the same steps needed to go from legacy
>>>> >                 neutron LBaaS to the
>>>> >                 > new core LBaaS service in this approach (twice, in
>>>> >                 succession) in case
>>>> >                 > for any reason the version goes from legacy neutron
>>>> >                 LBaaS -> new
>>>> >                 > neutron LBaaS -> new LBaaS core service.
>>>> >
>>>> >                 I totally agree that this is technical debt, but I
>>>> >                 believe it is the
>>>> >                 best option we have right now since LBaaS needs to
>>>> >                 live in the Neutron
>>>> >                 code and process because of the tight integration
>>>> >                 points.  Since this
>>>> >                 object model refactor has been slated for Juno, and
>>>> >                 these tight
>>>> >                 integration points may or may not be cleaned up by
>>>> >                 Juno, staying within
>>>> >                 Neutron seems to be the best option right now.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         v> As I described above, I think the tight integration points
>>>> >         are best kept in legacy code and not carried over to the new
>>>> >         implementation. The cleanest way to do it would be to clearly
>>>> >         demarcate neutron related operations (L2/L3) from LBaaS. But I
>>>> >         am keen to get your views on what the difficult integration
>>>> >         points are so that I get a better understanding of the
>>>> >         motivations behind keeping the new tables in neutron.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         Regards,
>>>> >         Vijay
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 > Going forward, the legacy neutron LBaaS API can be
>>>> >                 deprecated, and the
>>>> >                 > new API that directly contacts the new LBaaS core
>>>> >                 service can be used.
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 > We have discussed the above architecture previously,
>>>> >                 but outside of
>>>> >                 > the ML, and a draft of the blueprint for this new
>>>> >                 LBaaS core service
>>>> >                 > is underway, and is a collation of all the
>>>> >                 discussions among a large
>>>> >                 > number of LBaaS engineers including yourself during
>>>> >                 the summit - I
>>>> >                 > will be posting it for review within a couple of
>>>> >                 days, as planned.
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 > Regards,
>>>> >                 > Vijay
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Brandon Logan
>>>> >                 > <brandon.logan at rackspace.com> wrote:
>>>> >                 >         Referencing this blueprint:
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >
>>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89903/5/specs/juno/lbaas-api-and-objmodel-improvement.rst
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >         Anyone who has suggestions to possible
>>>> >                 issues or can answer
>>>> >                 >         some of
>>>> >                 >         these questions please respond.
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >         1. LoadBalancer to Listener relationship M:N
>>>> >                 vs 1:N
>>>> >                 >         The main reason we went with the M:N was so
>>>> >                 IPv6 could use the
>>>> >                 >         same
>>>> >                 >         listener as IPv4.  However this can be
>>>> >                 accomplished by the
>>>> >                 >         user just
>>>> >                 >         creating a second listener and pool with the
>>>> >                 same
>>>> >                 >         configuration.  This
>>>> >                 >         will end up being a bad user experience when
>>>> >                 the listener and
>>>> >                 >         pool
>>>> >                 >         configuration starts getting complex (adding
>>>> >                 in TLS, health
>>>> >                 >         monitors,
>>>> >                 >         SNI, etc). A good reason to not do the M:N
>>>> >                 is because the
>>>> >                 >         logic on might
>>>> >                 >         get complex when dealing with status.  I'd
>>>> >                 like to get
>>>> >                 >         people's opinions
>>>> >                 >         on this on whether we should do M:N or just
>>>> >                 1:N.  Another
>>>> >                 >         option, is to
>>>> >                 >         just implement 1:N right now and later
>>>> >                 implement the M:N in
>>>> >                 >         another
>>>> >                 >         blueprint if it is decided that the user
>>>> >                 experience suffers
>>>> >                 >         greatly.
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >         My opinion: I like the idea of leaving it to
>>>> >                 another blueprint
>>>> >                 >         to
>>>> >                 >         implement.  However, we would need to watch
>>>> >                 out for any major
>>>> >                 >         architecture changes in the time itis not
>>>> >                 implemented that
>>>> >                 >         could make
>>>> >                 >         this more difficult than what it needs to
>>>> >                 be.
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >         2. Pool to Health Monitor relationship 1:N
>>>> >                 vs 1:1
>>>> >                 >         Currently, I believe this is 1:N however it
>>>> >                 was suggested to
>>>> >                 >         deprecate
>>>> >                 >         this in favor of 1:1 by Susanne and Kyle
>>>> >                 agreed.  Are there
>>>> >                 >         any
>>>> >                 >         objections to channging to 1:1?
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >         My opinion: I'm for 1:1 as long as there
>>>> >                 aren't any major
>>>> >                 >         reasons why
>>>> >                 >         there needs to be 1:N.
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >         3. Does the Pool object need a status field
>>>> >                 now that it is a
>>>> >                 >         pure
>>>> >                 >         logical object?
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >         My opinion: I don't think it needs the
>>>> >                 status field.  I think
>>>> >                 >         the
>>>> >                 >         LoadBalancer object may be the only thing
>>>> >                 that needs a status,
>>>> >                 >         other
>>>> >                 >         than the pool members for health
>>>> >                 monitoring.  I might be
>>>> >                 >         corrected on
>>>> >                 >         this though.
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 >
>>>> >                 _______________________________________________
>>>> >                 >         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
>>>> >
>>>> >                 _______________________________________________
>>>> >                 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
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=F5etm0B6kVJ9jleIhCvNyA%3D%3D%0A&m=DYApm8uTUC2lxp%2B0qmdN9UhsdAxGdWaIHf5dr1N1tJE%3D%0A&s=ec3a8e21156d1b946db652fac0dab2e2268340aea37bd8c30adbf52fe2f3e8de
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >         _______________________________________________
>>>> >         OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> >         OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> >
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Stephen Balukoff
>>>> > Blue Box Group, LLC
>>>> > (800)613-4305 x807
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> >
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=F5etm0B6kVJ9jleIhCvNyA%3D%3D%0A&m=SPXsODyQQDMdWpsIy6DIIIQT2Ao%2FZRwloVLU6nM0qzw%3D%0A&s=4e8589eef4ccff3b179e9ff7822030cc792a654c8221b4544877949dd949d3e4
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stephen Balukoff
>>> Blue Box Group, LLC
>>> (800)613-4305 x807
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Stephen Balukoff
> Blue Box Group, LLC
> (800)613-4305 x807
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140603/b417ce62/attachment.html>


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list