Open Stack

we need to correct the previous reply.
----
Both should still be considered experimental because of
the multivendor work was NOT completed in Icehouse.
----
We can use only one service backend for each service and
there are no way to choose a backend when creating a service instance.

In addition, FWaaS API does not provides a way to specify
a router which a firewall instance is applied to.
It will be addressed in the service insertion blueprint.

Akihiro

(2014/04/25 6:55), McCann, Jack wrote:
> Thanks Mark.
>
> What steps are necessary to promote these APIs beyond experimental?
>
> - Jack
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark McClain [mailto:mmcclain at yahoo-inc.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 11:07 AM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] status of VPNaaS and FWaaS APIs in
>> Icehouse
>>
>>
>> On Apr 23, 2014, at 6:20 PM, McCann, Jack <jack.mccann at hp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Are VPNaaS and FWaaS APIs still considered experimental in Icehouse?
>>>
>>> For VPNaaS, [1] says "This extension is experimental for the Havana release."
>>> For FWaaS, [2] says "The Firewall-as-a-Service (FWaaS) API is an experimental
>> API..."
>>
>>
>> Thanks for asking.  Both should still be considered experimental because of the
>> multivendor work was completed in Icehouse.
>>
>>
>>> [1] http://docs.openstack.org/api/openstack-network/2.0/content/vpnaas_ext.html
>>> [2] http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/fwaas.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev