[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Implementing new LBaaS API

Eugene Nikanorov enikanorov at mirantis.com
Mon Jun 16 07:27:36 UTC 2014


Salvatore,

> Also - since it seems to me that there is also consensus regarding having
load balancing move away into a separate project
To me it seems that there was no such a consensus; core team members were
advocating keeping lbaas within neutron.

Thanks,
Eugene.


On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Brandon Logan <brandon.logan at rackspace.com>
wrote:

> Thank you Salvatore for your feedback.
>
> Comments in-line.
>
> On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 23:26 +0200, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
> > Regarding the two approaches outlines in the top post, I found out
> > that the bullet "This is API versioning done the wrong way" appears in
> > both approaches.
> > Is this a mistake or intentional?
>
> No it was intentional.  In my opinion they are both the wrong way.  It
> would be best to be able to do a version at the resource layer but we
> can't since lbaas is a part of Neutron and its versions is directly tied
> to Neutron's.  Another possibility is to have the resource look like:
>
> http(s)://neutron.endpoint/v2/lbaas/v2
>
> This looks very odd to me though and sets a bad precedent.  That is just
> my opinion though.  So I wouldn't call this the right way either.  Thus,
> I do not know of a "right" way to do this other than choosing the right
> "alternative" way.
>
> >
> >
> > From what I gather, the most reasonable approach appears to be
> > starting with a clean slate, which means having a new API living side
> > by side with the old one.
> > I think the naming collision issues should probably be solved using
> > distinct namespaces for the two API (the old one has /v2/lbaas as a
> > URI prefix I think, I have hardly any idea about what namespace the
> > new one should have)
> >
>
> I'm in agreement with you as well. The old one has /v2/lb as the prefix.
> I figured the new one could be /v2/lbaas which I think works out well.
>
> Another thing to consider that I did not think about in my original
> message is that a whole new load balancing agent will have to be created
> as well since its code is written with the pool being the root object.
> So that should be taken into consideration.  So to be perfectly clear,
> starting with a clean slate would involve the following:
>
> 1. New loadbalancer extension
> 2. New loadbalancer plugin
> 3. New lbaas_agentscheduler extension
> 4. New agent_scheduler plugin.
>
> Also, I don't believe doing this would allow the two to be deployed at
> the same time.  I believe the setup.cfg file would have to be modified
> to point to the new plugins.  I could be wrong about that though.
>
> >
> > Finally, about deprecation - I see it's been agreed to deprecate the
> > current API in Juno.
> > I think this is not the right way of doing things. The limits of the
> > current API are pretty much universally agreed; on the other hand, it
> > is generally not advisable to deprecate an old API in favour of the
> > new one at the first iteration such API is published. My preferred
> > strategy would be to introduce the new API as experimental in the Juno
> > release, so that in can be evaluated, apply any feedback and consider
> > for promoting in K - and contextually deprecate the old API.
> >
> >
> > As there is quite a radical change between the old and the new model,
> > keeping the old API indefinitely is a maintenance burden we probably
> > can't afford, and I would therefore propose complete removal one
> > release cycle after deprecation. Also - since it seems to me that
> > there is also consensus regarding having load balancing move away into
> > a separate project so that it would not be tied anymore to the
> > networking program, the old API is pretty much just dead weight.
> >
> > Salvatore
>
> Good idea on that.  I'll bring this up with everyone at the hackathon
> this week if it is not already on the table.
>
> Thanks again for your feedback.
>
> Brandon
> >
> >
> > On 11 June 2014 18:01, Kyle Mestery <mestery at noironetworks.com> wrote:
> >         I spoke to Mark McClain about this yesterday, I'll see if I
> >         can get
> >         him to join the LBaaS team meeting tomorrow so between he and
> >         I we can
> >         close on this with the LBaaS team.
> >
> >         On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Susanne Balle
> >         <sleipnir012 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >         > Do we know who has an opinion? If so maybe we can reach out
> >         to them directly
> >         > and ask them to comment.
> >         >
> >         >
> >         > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Brandon Logan
> >         <brandon.logan at rackspace.com>
> >         > wrote:
> >         >>
> >         >> Well we got a few opinions, but not enough understanding of
> >         the two
> >         >> options to make an informed decision.  It was requested
> >         that the core
> >         >> reviewers respond to this thread with their opinions.
> >         >>
> >         >> Thanks,
> >         >> Brandon
> >         >>
> >         >> On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 13:22 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote:
> >         >> > Yep, I'd like to know here, too--  as knowing the answer
> >         to this
> >         >> > unblocks implementation work for us.
> >         >> >
> >         >> >
> >         >> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Brandon Logan
> >         >> > <brandon.logan at rackspace.com> wrote:
> >         >> >         Any core neutron people have a chance to give
> >         their opinions
> >         >> >         on this
> >         >> >         yet?
> >         >> >
> >         >> >         Thanks,
> >         >> >         Brandon
> >         >> >
> >         >> >         On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 15:28 +0000, Buraschi,
> >         Andres wrote:
> >         >> >         > Thanks, Kyle. Great.
> >         >> >         >
> >         >> >         > -----Original Message-----
> >         >> >         > From: Kyle Mestery
> >         [mailto:mestery at noironetworks.com]
> >         >> >         > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 11:27 AM
> >         >> >         > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for
> >         usage
> >         >> >         questions)
> >         >> >         > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron]
> >         Implementing new
> >         >> >         LBaaS API
> >         >> >         >
> >         >> >         > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Brandon Logan
> >         >> >         <brandon.logan at rackspace.com> wrote:
> >         >> >         > > Hi Andres,
> >         >> >         > > I've assumed (and we know how assumptions
> >         work) that the
> >         >> >         deprecation
> >         >> >         > > would take place in Juno and after a cyle or
> >         two it would
> >         >> >         totally be
> >         >> >         > > removed from the code.  Even if #1 is the way
> >         to go, the
> >         >> >         old /vips
> >         >> >         > > resource would be deprecated in favor
> >         of /loadbalancers
> >         >> >         and /listeners.
> >         >> >         > >
> >         >> >         > > I agree #2 is cleaner, but I don't want to
> >         start on an
> >         >> >         implementation
> >         >> >         > > (though I kind of already have) that will
> >         fail to be
> >         >> >         merged in because
> >         >> >         > > of the strategy.  The strategies are pretty
> >         different so
> >         >> >         one needs to
> >         >> >         > > be decided on.
> >         >> >         > >
> >         >> >         > > As for where LBaaS is intended to end up, I
> >         don't want to
> >         >> >         speak for
> >         >> >         > > Kyle, so this is my understanding; It will
> >         end up outside
> >         >> >         of the
> >         >> >         > > Neutron code base but Neutron and LBaaS and
> >         other services
> >         >> >         will all
> >         >> >         > > fall under a Networking (or Network)
> >         program.  That is my
> >         >> >         > > understanding and I could be totally wrong.
> >         >> >         > >
> >         >> >         > That's my understanding as well, I think
> >         Brandon worded it
> >         >> >         perfectly.
> >         >> >         >
> >         >> >         > > Thanks,
> >         >> >         > > Brandon
> >         >> >         > >
> >         >> >         > > On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 20:30 +0000, Buraschi,
> >         Andres wrote:
> >         >> >         > >> Hi Brandon, hi Kyle!
> >         >> >         > >> I'm a bit confused about the deprecation
> >         (btw, thanks for
> >         >> >         sending this Brandon!), as I (wrongly) assumed #1
> >         would be the
> >         >> >         chosen path for the new API implementation. I
> >         understand the
> >         >> >         proposal and #2 sounds actually cleaner.
> >         >> >         > >>
> >         >> >         > >> Just out of curiosity, Kyle, where is LBaaS
> >         functionality
> >         >> >         intended to end up, if long-term plans are to
> >         remove it from
> >         >> >         Neutron?
> >         >> >         > >>
> >         >> >         > >> (Nit question, I must clarify)
> >         >> >         > >>
> >         >> >         > >> Thank you!
> >         >> >         > >> Andres
> >         >> >         > >>
> >         >> >         > >> -----Original Message-----
> >         >> >         > >> From: Brandon Logan
> >         [mailto:brandon.logan at RACKSPACE.COM]
> >         >> >         > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 2:18 PM
> >         >> >         > >> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >         >> >         > >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron]
> >         Implementing new
> >         >> >         LBaaS API
> >         >> >         > >>
> >         >> >         > >> Thanks for your feedback Kyle.  I will be at
> >         that meeting
> >         >> >         on Monday.
> >         >> >         > >>
> >         >> >         > >> Thanks,
> >         >> >         > >> Brandon
> >         >> >         > >>
> >         >> >         > >> On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 11:54 -0500, Kyle
> >         Mestery wrote:
> >         >> >         > >> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Brandon
> >         Logan
> >         >> >         > >> > <brandon.logan at rackspace.com> wrote:
> >         >> >         > >> > > This is an LBaaS topic bud I'd like to
> >         get some
> >         >> >         Neutron Core
> >         >> >         > >> > > members to give their opinions on this
> >         matter so I've
> >         >> >         just
> >         >> >         > >> > > directed this to Neutron proper.
> >         >> >         > >> > >
> >         >> >         > >> > > The design for the new API and object
> >         model for LBaaS
> >         >> >         needs to be
> >         >> >         > >> > > locked down before the hackathon in a
> >         couple of weeks
> >         >> >         and there
> >         >> >         > >> > > are some questions that need answered.
> >          This is
> >         >> >         pretty urgent to
> >         >> >         > >> > > come on to a decision on and to get a
> >         clear strategy
> >         >> >         defined so
> >         >> >         > >> > > we can actually do real code during the
> >         hackathon
> >         >> >         instead of
> >         >> >         > >> > > wasting some of that valuable time
> >         discussing this.
> >         >> >         > >> > >
> >         >> >         > >> > >
> >         >> >         > >> > > Implementation must be backwards
> >         compatible
> >         >> >         > >> > >
> >         >> >         > >> > > There are 2 ways that have come up on
> >         how to do this:
> >         >> >         > >> > >
> >         >> >         > >> > > 1) New API and object model are created
> >         in the same
> >         >> >         extension and
> >         >> >         > >> > > plugin as the old.  Any API requests
> >         structured for
> >         >> >         the old API
> >         >> >         > >> > > will be translated/adapted to the into
> >         the new object
> >         >> >         model.
> >         >> >         > >> > > PROS:
> >         >> >         > >> > > -Only one extension and plugin
> >         >> >         > >> > > -Mostly true backwards compatibility -Do
> >         not have to
> >         >> >         rename
> >         >> >         > >> > > unchanged resources and models
> >         >> >         > >> > > CONS:
> >         >> >         > >> > > -May end up being confusing to an
> >         end-user.
> >         >> >         > >> > > -Separation of old api and new api is
> >         less clear
> >         >> >         -Deprecating and
> >         >> >         > >> > > removing old api and object model will
> >         take a bit
> >         >> >         more work -This
> >         >> >         > >> > > is basically API versioning the wrong
> >         way
> >         >> >         > >> > >
> >         >> >         > >> > > 2) A new extension and plugin are
> >         created for the new
> >         >> >         API and
> >         >> >         > >> > > object model.  Each API would live side
> >         by side.  New
> >         >> >         API would
> >         >> >         > >> > > need to have different names for
> >         resources and object
> >         >> >         models from
> >         >> >         > >> > > Old API resources and object models.
> >         >> >         > >> > > PROS:
> >         >> >         > >> > > -Clean demarcation point between old and
> >         new -No
> >         >> >         translation
> >         >> >         > >> > > layer needed -Do not need to modify
> >         existing API and
> >         >> >         object
> >         >> >         > >> > > model, no new bugs -Drivers do not need
> >         to be
> >         >> >         immediately
> >         >> >         > >> > > modified -Easy to deprecate and remove
> >         old API and
> >         >> >         object model
> >         >> >         > >> > > later
> >         >> >         > >> > > CONS:
> >         >> >         > >> > > -Separate extensions and object model
> >         will be
> >         >> >         confusing to
> >         >> >         > >> > > end-users -Code reuse by copy paste
> >         since old
> >         >> >         extension and
> >         >> >         > >> > > plugin will be deprecated and removed.
> >         >> >         > >> > > -This is basically API versioning the
> >         wrong way
> >         >> >         > >> > >
> >         >> >         > >> > > Now if #2 is chosen to be feasible and
> >         acceptable
> >         >> >         then there are
> >         >> >         > >> > > a number of ways to actually do that.  I
> >         won't bring
> >         >> >         those up
> >         >> >         > >> > > until a clear decision is made on which
> >         strategy
> >         >> >         above is the most acceptable.
> >         >> >         > >> > >
> >         >> >         > >> > Thanks for sending this out Brandon. I'm
> >         in favor of
> >         >> >         option #2
> >         >> >         > >> > above, especially considering the
> >         long-term plans to
> >         >> >         remove LBaaS
> >         >> >         > >> > from Neutron. That approach will help the
> >         eventual end
> >         >> >         goal there.
> >         >> >         > >> > I am also curious on what others think,
> >         and to this
> >         >> >         end, I've added
> >         >> >         > >> > this as an agenda item for the team
> >         meeting next
> >         >> >         Monday. Brandon,
> >         >> >         > >> > it would be great to get you there for the
> >         part of the
> >         >> >         meeting
> >         >> >         > >> > where we'll discuss this.
> >         >> >         > >> >
> >         >> >         > >> > Thanks!
> >         >> >         > >> > Kyle
> >         >> >         > >> >
> >         >> >         > >> > > Thanks,
> >         >> >         > >> > > Brandon
> >         >> >         > >> > >
> >         >> >         > >> > >
> >         >> >         > >> > >
> >         >> >         > >> > >
> >         >> >         > >> > >
> >         >> >         > >> > >
> >         >> >         > >> > >
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         >> >         > >> > > 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
> >         >> >         > >>
> >         >> >
> >         >> >
> >
> 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
> >         >> >         >
> >         >> >
> >         >> >
> >
> 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
> >         >
> >         >
> >         >
> >         > _______________________________________________
> >         > 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
> 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/20140616/37adee29/attachment.html>


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list