Open Stack

> How do you plan to handle API compatibility?
The new API is not compatible and i think there was a consensus that such
change is needed and incompatibility is justified.

> Is an extension for each (eg. add router_id to a loadblancer resource)
necessary ?
Basically, yes, there should be an extension for each kind of binding with
the exception that binding to providers is a part of lbaas API.

Thanks,
Eugene.


On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Itsuro ODA <oda at valinux.co.jp> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > 2. Loadbalancer can be used to bind configuration to a provider, device,
> agent (host), router
>
> What's the plan about this ?
> Is an extension for each (eg. add router_id to a loadblancer resource)
> necessary ?
>
> Thanks.
> Itsuro Oda
>
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:14:47 +0400
> Eugene Nikanorov <enikanorov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I've created a brief description of this feature.
> > You can find it here:
> > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/LoadbalancerInstance<
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/lbaas-service-instance>
> >
> > I would appreciate any comments/ideas about this.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eugene.
>
> --
> Itsuro ODA <oda at valinux.co.jp>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131118/27143433/attachment.html>