Open Stack

Hi Sam and Dan,

I think there are two different approaches we are seeing on Service
implementation like having 'Generic Service Agent', which will cater all
the network needs like the one given in below link:

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/20985/

and the other which was recently shared by Dan as below:

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/22794/3

We may have to follow modular approach, where these services can be
extended to other applications as well in next releases.

As Dan rightly stated that we have to make sure that Service Architecture
must support both VM+HW appliances.

Regards,
Balaji.P



On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Dan Wendlandt <dan at nicira.com> wrote:

> Hi Sam,
>
> That sounds like a great starting list of LBaaS discussion topics.  Once
> we're closer to the summit, we'll probably use an etherpad to help organize
> our discussion and this seems like a good outline to start from.  Pushing
> on more advanced plugin/driver models aimed at VM + HW load balancers is
> certainly something that a lot of folks are interested in.
>
> Dan
>
>  On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Samuel Bercovici <SamuelB at radware.com>wrote:
>
>>   Hi Everyone,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The deliveries of LBaaS for Grizzly looks like it will be focused on
>> using HAProxy.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The following items might  come to mind for discussion in the Havana
>> summit:****
>>
>> **1.       **Review the Grizzly tenant API proposal and discuss what
>> should be done for Havana****
>>
>> **2.       **Review the Driver implementation and discuss next step to
>> enable additional solutions and vendors to be added****
>>
>> **a.       **Driver API****
>>
>> **b.      **Driver selection****
>>
>> **c.       **Where should the scheduler be if at all?****
>>
>> **d.      **Solution models****
>>
>> **                                                               i.
>> **Network service (as for Grizzly)****
>>
>> **                                                             ii.      *
>> *Service VM****
>>
>> **                                                            iii.      *
>> *Physical appliances - decide if/how to connect physical appliances
>> (revisit the Edge Gateway semantics proposed in the Grizzly summit?)****
>>
>> **3.       **Address additional network topologies and capabilities:****
>>
>> **a.       **LB between two networks****
>>
>> **b.      **Adding SNAT and DSR on top of the current NAT implementation*
>> ***
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> What do you think?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Regards,****
>>
>>                 -Sam.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dan Wendlandt
> Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com
> twitter: danwendlandt
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130228/1828ac55/attachment.html>