Open Stack

Hi Leon,


1.       [Leon] I agree with Ilya that we shouldn’t put lbMethod as part of VIP. It’s kinda of duplicate of lbMethod in Pool and confusing to user. In future when we want to support L7 rules, no need to add lbMethod to VIP any more.

Yes. This is now part of the Pool as we discussed in the last meeting.


2.       A pool can have several health monitors associated with it.
[Leon] I think we need to elaborate the condition for multiple health monitors. In the first release, the implicit condition should be AND, which means the health status will be OK only if all health monitors is OK.

Yes agree. I will make this clear in the spec.


3.       HTTPS: used to send a secure HTTP request to the member.
[Leon] I assume this monitor is using ssl-hello message to detect the health of member which is a HTTPS server.  Otherwise, we need to provide the client certificate.

There is no need for a client cert. The monitor is just opening a secure SSL connection to the HTTPS server, just like HTTP case and then fire the request and examines the returned HTTP status code.


4.        [Leon] We should support SSL_SessionID based session persistence for HTTPS protocol (actually it’s SSL passthrough)

This was discussed during the last summit, and it was felt that this is not useful to support as a persistence method, as SSL session ids tend to last for just a few minutes.


5.       [Leon] Shall we add “rate_limit” as part of VIP to enhance anti-DoS ability.

We had this in Atlas, and we discussed it at the summit too, and it was agreed that in 1.0, we will support simple absolute limits.

6.       Connectin_limit property
[Leon] connection_limit could be a property of member. In “connection limits”, you have said that “To control incoming traffic on the VIP address as well as traffic for a specific member of a pool,”, therefore we need member level connection throttling.

Sorry if the text is misleading, but I meant the same limit applies to each member of the pool. We won’t have a different limit per member.


7.       HTTPS Health Monitor
[Leon] If HTTPS health monitor is using ssl-hello message mechanism, http_method/url_path/expected_codes properties is only valid for HTTP Health Monitor. Otherwise, we need to provide client certificate/key/cipher properties.

See my previous comment on 4.


Thanks
Leon

Thanks again Leon for your careful review of this.

Youcef

发件人: Youcef Laribi [mailto:Youcef.Laribi at eu.citrix.com]<mailto:[mailto:Youcef.Laribi at eu.citrix.com]>
发送时间: 2012年10月30日 2:24
收件人: Ilya Shakhat
抄送: Sachin Thakkar; Serge Maskalik; Eugene Nikanorov; Samuel Bercovici; Rudra Rugge; Alex Gosse; Leon Cui; Brent Busby; Kobi Samoray; Anand Palanisamy; John Gruber; Chinmay Naik; Oleg Bondarev; Eugene Kirpichev; Roman Alekseenkov; Salvatore Orlando; Peter Mellquist; Dan Wendlandt; OpenStack Development Mailing List (openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>)
主题: RE: [openstack-dev][Quantum][LBaaS] LBaaS API 1.0 spec draft

Hi Ilya,

Thanks to you and the team for your detailed review and your comments, much appreciated! Let me go through them:
Last Tuesday we discussed where to put 'lb_method' attribute and decided to keep it in both VIP and Pool and implement inheritance. Well.. from fresh view this looks confusing, There will be some users who will operate with lb_method via VIP and others - via Pool, and sooner or later one type will take over other. The inheritance could be useful if we had >1 pools, but we've decided to put this out of core scope. For case of multiple pools it would be more appropriate to call attribute 'selector' or 'rule', just like in F5.
Yes only one pool is supported in Core API, but we wanted to keep the door open to people who want to build L7 rules extensions and add several pools. In this case, they will need the lb_method on pool as each pool might be using a different method for load-balancing. But I guess, if they are extending the VIP object (to configure L7 rules and to add “extra” pools), they can also extend the Pool object and add an “lb_method” attribute to it too, so this can be removed from core. Let’s discuss this in tomorrow’s meeting.
How to retrieve error details for async calls? May we add an attribute 'error_details' to all objects and fill it in case of error?
Good question. Ideally, all validation should be done on the request at submission time, and once it is accepted, the request should succeed asynchronously on the plugin. But realistically, validation might not be rigorous enough at submission time, and an error might still be discovered later by the plugin, so when status of a resource is set to “ERROR”, we could have another field as you suggest in all resources explaining what caused the status to be set to “ERROR”.

For DELETE requests if no body is returned then HTTP code should be 204 "No Content". As an alternative way we may want to return object that is scheduled for deletion with status=PENDING_DELETE and HTTP code 202.
Yes good point. I’ll update the spec.
We introduced operations to retrieve list of supported protocols and LB methods. Besides these there are two more that are driver-dependent: health monitoring and session persistence. I suppose we need to add operations for them too.
I would regard the type of health monitors and session persistence methods described in the spec as mandatory for all drivers to supported. If they are not supported by some drivers, then we should remove them from the core spec. There should be some guarantee for users of the API that some functionality is supported by al drivers/plugins. Extensions (through drivers) can add extra lb methods, protocols, health monitors, session persistence types, etc.  May be we can replace this by a capability call to list everything rather than having a separate API for each. I’ll see what the other OpenStack projects do.
In Remove a Pool operation there's a note: "Attempting to remove a pool that is used in a VIP will result in a badRequest (400) error. First remove the pool from the VIP, then you can destroy the pool and its members." Since VIP.pool_id is now scalar value would it be more correct to require removal of the whole VIP object before removing Pool?
I don’t think this will entirely solve the problem because sometimes you might want to remove the pool but keep the VIP. The idea I had is that you remove the pool from the VIP by replacing it the VIP’s pool_id with another Pool that you created. That way, you ensure that a VIP always has a pool and at the same time, break the association between the VIP and the old pool. The old pool now being free (not attached to any VIP), can be safely removed.

Let's add a note that all update operations adopt patch semantics (like Quantum does)
Good point. Yes, the semantics of “PUT” in REST is not universally agreed upon :)

Normal Response Code for 'List VIPs' and 'Retrieve VIP details' should be 200 (not 202)
In 'Delete Health Monitor' operation the title for example should be "Delete a TCP Monitor" (not Update)
Good catches. Will update.
Youcef

From: Ilya Shakhat [mailto:ishakhat at mirantis.com]<mailto:[mailto:ishakhat at mirantis.com]>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 6:59 AM
To: Youcef Laribi
Cc: Sachin Thakkar; Serge Maskalik; Eugene Nikanorov; Samuel Bercovici; Rudra Rugge; Alex Gosse; Leon Cui; Brent Busby; Kobi Samoray; Anand Palanisamy; John Gruber; Chinmay Naik; Oleg Bondarev; Eugene Kirpichev; Roman Alekseenkov; Salvatore Orlando; Peter Mellquist; Dan Wendlandt; OpenStack Development Mailing List (openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev][Quantum][LBaaS] LBaaS API 1.0 spec draft

Youcef,

Please find comments and questions below:

 1.  Last Tuesday we discussed where to put 'lb_method' attribute and decided to keep it in both VIP and Pool and implement inheritance. Well.. from fresh view this looks confusing, There will be some users who will operate with lb_method via VIP and others - via Pool, and sooner or later one type will take over other. The inheritance could be useful if we had >1 pools, but we've decided to put this out of core scope. For case of multiple pools it would be more appropriate to call attribute 'selector' or 'rule', just like in F5.
 2.  How to retrieve error details for async calls? May we add an attribute 'error_details' to all objects and fill it in case of error?
 3.  For DELETE requests if no body is returned then HTTP code should be 204 "No Content". As an alternative way we may want to return object that is scheduled for deletion with status=PENDING_DELETE and HTTP code 202.
 4.  We introduced operations to retrieve list of supported protocols and LB methods. Besides these there are two more that are driver-dependent: health monitoring and session persistence. I suppose we need to add operations for them too.
 5.  In Remove a Pool operation there's a note: "Attempting to remove a pool that is used in a VIP will result in a badRequest (400) error. First remove the pool from the VIP, then you can destroy the pool and its members." Since VIP.pool_id is now scalar value would it be more correct to require removal of the whole VIP object before removing Pool?
 6.  Let's add a note that all update operations adopt patch semantics (like Quantum does)
 7.  Normal Response Code for 'List VIPs' and 'Retrieve VIP details' should be 200 (not 202)
 8.  In 'Delete Health Monitor' operation the title for example should be "Delete a TCP Monitor" (not Update)
Thanks for great job on putting this together! We are ready to start the implementation.

Ilya.


2012/10/27 Youcef Laribi <Youcef.Laribi at eu.citrix.com<mailto:Youcef.Laribi at eu.citrix.com>>
I have put a first draft of the LBaaS API on the wiki page  http://wiki.openstack.org/Quantum/LBaaS/API_1.0, so please have a look before next week’s meeting. There is still some work to be done on it, but the essential details to start the implementation should be there.

Thanks,
Youcef
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20121101/6a857e92/attachment-0001.html>