Open Stack

Thanks,

Do you have the links for the discussions ?

Thanks,

JC

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Rudra Rugge <rrugge at juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> JC,
> 
> BP has been updated with the correct links. I have removed the abandoned
> review #3.
> Please review #1 and #2.
> 
> 1. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/40071/
> 
>   This is the active review.
>   There is one comment by Sean regarding
>   adding a knob when Neutron is not used.
>   That will be addressed with the next path.
> 2. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/53171
>   This is the active review for tempest
>   test cases as requested by Joe Gordon.
>   Currently abandoned until #1 goes through.
> 3. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/53171
>   This review is not active. It was accidentally submitted with a new
> change-id. 
> 
> Regards,
> Rudra
> 
>> On 2/16/14, 9:25 AM, "Martin, JC" <jch.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Harshad,
>> 
>> I tried to find some discussion around this blueprint.
>> Could you provide us with some notes or threads  ?
>> 
>> Also, about the code review you mention. which one are you talking about :
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/40071/
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/49470/
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/53171
>> 
>> because they are all abandoned.
>> 
>> Could you point me to the code, and update the BP because it seems that
>> the links are not correct.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> JC
>>> On Feb 16, 2014, at 9:04 AM, "Allamaraju, Subbu" <subbu at subbu.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Harshad,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for clarifying.
>>> 
>>>> We started looking at this as some our customers/partners were
>>>> interested in get AWS API compatibility. We have this blueprint and
>>>> code review pending for long time now. We will know based on this
>>>> thread wether the community is interested. But I assumed that community
>>>> was interested as the blueprint was approved and code review has no
>>>> -1(s) for long time now.
>>> 
>>> Makes sense. I would leave it to others on this list to chime in if
>>> there is sufficient interest or not.
>>> 
>>>> To clarify, a clear incremental path from an AWS compatible API to an
>>>> OpenStack model is not clear.
>>>> 
>>>> In my mind AWS compatible API does not need new openstack model. As
>>>> more discussion happen on JC's proposal and implementation becomes
>>>> clear we will know how incremental is the path. But at high level there
>>>> two major differences
>>>> 1. New first class object will be introduced which effect all
>>>> components
>>>> 2. more than one project can be supported within VPC.
>>>> But it does not change AWS API(s). So even in JC(s) model if you want
>>>> AWS API then we will have to keep VPC to project mapping 1:1, since the
>>>> API will not take both VPC ID and project ID.
>>>> 
>>>> As more users want to migrate from AWS or IaaS providers who want
>>>> compete with AWS should be interested in this compatibility.
>>> 
>>> IMHO that's a tough sell. Though an AWS compatible API does not need an
>>> OpenStack abstraction, we would end up with two independent ways of
>>> doing similar things. That would OpenStack repeating itself!
>>> 
>>> Subbu
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev