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.

+1. I think it was a shame that there were full Nova and full Quantum 
tracks at the last design summit, which made collaborating kind of 
impossible, as you had to pick which track you were in. Kicking off the 
design summit with a set of joint Nova / Quantum sessions would be huge 
to getting both teams to take the other project into account during the 
rest of the summit.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
IBM Linux Technology Center
email: sdague at linux.vnet.ibm.com
alt-email: sldague at us.ibm.com