Open Stack

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!
>