[openstack-dev] Nova PTL Candidacy
Monty Taylor
mordred at inaugust.com
Mon Mar 4 18:50:05 UTC 2013
On 03/04/2013 01:43 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 03/04/2013 01:19 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com
>> <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com
>> <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>> One area that I
>> think could use some additional attention is the collaboration
>> between
>> Nova and Quantum. I would like to step up the effort to get to
>> where we
>> are no longer maintaining two networking stacks.
>>
>>
>> +10
>>
>> Instead of focusing on the ability to entirely replace internal Nova
>> networking with Quantum, unfortunately feature development in
>> Quantum has been the focus over the last two release cycles.
>>
>>
>> I'm actually surprised to hear this comment. If you look at the 'high'
>> or 'critical' features for quantum in folsom or grizzly, reaching full
>> parity with nova use cases has been the highest priority.
>>
>> Nova Parity In Folsom:
>> - IPAM
>> - L3 + floating IPs
>> - basic metadata
>>
>> Nova Parity In Grizzly:
>> - security groups
>> - better metadata integration
>> - multi-host like L3 + dhcp model
>>
>> The only thing I see as missing is a cloudpipe VPN equivalent, and to be
>> honest the reason for this is that no one seems very interested in using
>> this capability. It was targeted for Folsom, but no one showed up to
>> write any code. I've heard a few people coordinating on plans for
>> Havana for VPN, so achieving it seems more likely.
>
> This progress is great. It seems like we should be considering making
> Quantum the default for Havana if the VPN functionality isn't widely
> used. What do you think?
>
> Also, what do you think of the idea of having some design summit time
> where we make sure that Nova and Quantum people can be in the same room
> at the same time? At a minimum, we could have one session on "Making
> Quantum the default in Nova". If there are more Nova<->Quantum
> integration topics, we could extend the time.
+1000
>> Are there other key gaps you see? When I had talked with Vish about
>> this in the past, the model was to freeze nova-network to allow Quantum
>> to reach parity, and then push people away from nova-network toward
>> Quantum.
>
> What you have listed already are all of the things I knew about.
>
> I'm not sure if freezing nova-network has really happened. There isn't
> big feature development going on, but there has certainly been an
> ongoing noticeable maintenance burden just supporting what we have. I'd
> like to kill that as soon as we can. I'm sure you wouldn't mind that
> either!
>
More information about the OpenStack-dev
mailing list