Open Stack

On 08/06/2014 04:51 PM, Pedro Marques wrote:
> Neutron allows vendors to speak to proprietary device APIs, it was
> designed to do so, AFAIK. It is also possibly to "entirely swap out
> all of the Neutron core"... the proponents of the group based policy
> didn't have to go through so much trouble if that was their intent.
> As far as i know most plugins talk to a proprietary API.
>
> I happen to disagree technically with a couple of choices made by
> this proposal; but the blueprint was approved. Which means that i
> lost the argument, or didn't raise it on time, or didn't argue
> convincingly... regardless of the reason, the time to argue about the
> goal has passed. The decision of the community was to approve the
> spec and that decision should be respected.

Sure, no problem. I'll just go back to Nova and wait around to help 
clean up the mess.

In all seriousness, folks, I'm bringing up points about the proposed API 
because I see the current mess of Neutron integration with Nova, I see 
that nova-network has been "undeprecated" due to continuing lack of 
parity and HA concerns in Neutron, and I want things to be better, not 
worse.

Neutron contributors need to recognize that Nova is the pre-eminent 
consumer of Neutron interfaces, and until those interfaces are stable, 
consistent regardless of underlying hardware or driver choices, and 
generally preferable for Nova to recommend as its default network 
driver, then the Neutron project is sitting as an island unto itself.

The fact that not enough Nova developers (including yours truly) are 
paying attention to what is going on in Neutron spec-land and roadmap is 
a serious problem we should deal with directly (cross-project spec 
meetings, better documentation and communication, shared bug triaging 
and verification meetings, etc). Otherwise, these kinds of conversations 
are likely to continue.

Best,
-jay