Open Stack

> Hi,
> 
> I haven’t read through those (need to go spend time with family so replying
> quickly) but given the dates the planning phases for Quantum/Neutron LBaaS
> and Libra LBaaS were at the same time.
> 
> There was an internal evaluation of the current LBaaS solutions done at the
> time and it was believed by the people evaluating that Atlas was a good
> place to start. I came in just as that evaluation had finished (late August
> 2012) and the decision was pretty much made. In retrospect I may have
> personally gone the Mirantis LBaaS as a starting point. But either way there
> were some good starting places.
> 
> Libra was initially a few trees so history is hard to track, but we had
> something in production by December that year.
> 
> In response to Alex, the Libra team in HP is growing (it is currently still
> pretty small) and that should help us have more engineers to work with the
> Neutron team. The current goal is to get 5.x out of the door which adds
> things like metering/billing support and then planning how we can integrate
> well with Neutron. I believe the Libra team have a few diagrams flying
> around on a mutually beneficial way of doing that.

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the all the responses. I certainly didn't want to throw the blame at one of the team, but I think we should try to converge. In particular Neutron LBaaS would benefit greatly from having a big deployment like HP. I hope the 2 teams can find a way to collaborate.

There are benefits to have a different endpoint like Libra proposes, although now that LBaaS is integrated in Neutron it's going to be difficult to change. There is a tension in OpenStack currently between keeping the projects lean (by having small, independent code bases) and making deployments easy (by not having to deploy dozens of projects). I feel we haven't found a great answer yet.

-- 
Thomas