Open Stack

Yes, Rackspace has users that have multiple IPv4 and IPv6 VIPs on a
single load balancer.  However, I don't think it is a matter of it being
needed.  It's a matter of having an API that makes sense to a user.
Just because the API has multiple VIPs doesn't mean every VIP needs its
own port.  In fact creating a port is an implementation detail (you know
that phrase that everyone throws out to stonewall any discussions?).
The user doesn't care how many neutron ports are set up underneath, they
only care about the VIPs.   

Also, the load balancer wouldn't just be a container, the load balancer
would have flavor, affinity, and other metadata on it.  Plus, a user
will expect to get a load balancer back.  Since this object can only be
described as a load balancer, the name of it shouldn't be up for debate.

The API is meant to be a generic language that can be translated into a
working load balancer and should be driver agnostic.  We believe this is
the most generic and flexible API structure.  Each driver will be able
to translate this into what makes sense for that product.

On a side note, if this is too disruptive for the current LBaaS then why
couldn't this go into Neutron V3?  I thought that was the plan all along
anyway with redesigning the API.

Thanks,
Brandon  

On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 14:30 +0400, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> 
> I'm pulling this question out of another discussion:
> 
> 
> Is there a need to have multiple VIPs (e.g. multiple L2 ports/IP
> addresses) per logical loadbalancer?
> If so, we need the description of such cases to evaluate them.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Eugene.
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev