[Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases

Matt Van Winkle mvanwink at rackspace.com
Fri Feb 6 18:20:52 UTC 2015

On 2/6/15 12:09 PM, "Tim Bell" <Tim.Bell at cern.ch> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Belanger [mailto:paul.belanger at polybeacon.com]
>> Sent: 06 February 2015 18:52
>> To: openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of
>> TelcoWG use cases
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:25 AM, George Shuklin
>><george.shuklin at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On 02/06/2015 04:12 PM, Steve Gordon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>
>> >>> From: "George Shuklin" <george.shuklin at gmail.com>
>> >>> To: openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>> >>>
>> >>> Sorry guys. I think most of the ops here have no idea what you
>> >>> talking about. Telcos is telcos, ops is ops. Different worlds,
>> >>> different problems, different terminology.
>> >>
>> >> Hi George,
>> >>
>> >> The telco working group is intended to bridge the gap between
>> >> telcommunications operators and the openstack community, something
>> >> we've been working on in some form since Atlanta. Once you boil away
>> >> the TLAs many of their core requirements are not significantly
>> >> different for what you might consider "normal" operators, or at least
>> >> operators in other verticals like high performance computing.
>> >>
>> >> We primarily communicated on the -dev list prior to Paris but the
>> >> feedback we got in the session there (on the operators track no
>> >> less!) was that most people involved were more comfortable
>> >> communicating in the context of the operators M/L than mixed in with
>> >> the development traffic. If certain types of operators are not
>> >> welcome in the openstack operators community then I think that would
>>be a
>> shame.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > I think it not really possible. If you talking about 'openstack' as
>> > 'Openstack developers', may be. But for operators all telco stuff is
>> > just completely foreign. I do not understand what they doing and I
>> > don't need them for my job. Sorry.
>> >
>> Interesting, I was actually talking for some friends about the business
>>of 'telco'
>> and OpenStack recently.  Like some operators have indicated, the world
>> 'telco' is foreign to them but since my background come from the VoIP /
>> environment I can see where you are coming from.
>> I'm going to look at your proposal, and see if I can make some
>>comments.  But, I
>> am personally interested in this topic, more as a FYI.
>I find a risk in splitting our community into too many pieces. The High
>Performance needs are different from the Telcos from the Finance sector
>but I think we can learn hugely from others. The work that Telcos do for
>SR-IOV and low latency is a major benefit for the HPC Infiniband use
>cases. Best of all is if we can make our requirements sufficiently
>generic to cover multiple user communities.
>So, Let's tag the subject lines with [telco] so people can skip if they
>wish but I think we have lots in common to run production clouds even if
>the final businesses are different.

I would agree.  We are doing the same thing with the Large Deployments
Team - keeping a group of folks focused on issues, wants, needs of large
OpenStack deployments, but doing it as much as possible within the larger
Ops community with some of the same tactics as mentioned above.


>> --
>> Paul Belanger | PolyBeacon, Inc.
>> Jabber: paul.belanger at polybeacon.com | IRC: pabelanger (Freenode)
>> Github: https://github.com/pabelanger | Twitter:
>> https://twitter.com/pabelanger
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>OpenStack-operators mailing list
>OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org

More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list