Open Stack

Hi Roger,
Yes, I agree with your comments.

Following are the few use cases for LBaaS-UUID:

i) There is a need for common configuration support for SLB's in Network Node and the SLB's deployed [using Network Service Chains] for East-West traffic for a Tenant. To map the configuration for Network Node - SLB and Service Chain - SLB, we need UUID for each SLB configuration. So that we can map the configuration based on Tenant network requirements.

ii) To support multiple Configurations to SLB, UUID of SLB can be useful to map the configuration dynamically.

Regards,
Srikanth

"WICKES, ROGER" <rw314w at att.com> wrote:


Maybe I am misunderstanding the debate, but imho Every OpenStack Service (XaaS) needs to be listed in the Service Catalog as being available (and stable and tested), and every instance of that service, when started, needs a service ID, and every X created by that service needs a UUID aka object id. This is regardless of how many of them are per tenant or host or whatever. This discussion may be semantics, but just to be clear, LBaaS is the service that is called to create an LB.

On the surface, it makes sense that you would only have one Service running per tenant; every object or instantiation created by that service (a Load Balancer, in this case) must have a UUID. I can't imagine why you would want multiple LBaaS services running at the same time, but again my imagination is limited. I am sure someone else has more imagination, such as a tenant having two vApps located on hosts in two different data centers, and they want an LBaaS in each data center since their inventory system or whatever is restricted to a single data center. If there were like two or three LBaaS' running, how would Neutron or Heat etc. know which one to call (criteria) when the network changes? It would be like having two butlers.

A UUID on each Load Balancer is needed for alarming, callbacks, service assurance, service delivery, service availability monitoring and reporting, billing, compliance audits, and simply being able to modify the service. If there is an n-ary tuple relationship between LB and anything, you might be inclined to restrict only one LB per vApp. However, for ultra-high volume and high-availability apps we may want cross-redundant LB's with a third LB in front of the first two; that way if one gets overloaded or crashes, we can route to the other. A user might want to even mix and match hard and soft LB's in a hybrid environment. So, even in that use case, restricting the number of LB's or their tupleness is restrictive.

I also want to say to those who are struggling with reasonable n-ary relationship modeling: This is just a problem with global app development, where there are so many use cases out there. It's tough to never say never, as in, you would never want more than one LBaaS per tenant.

[Roger] ------------------------------
From: Srikanth Kumar Lingala [mailto:srikanth.lingala at freescale.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 5:18 PM
To: Stephen Balukoff; Veera Reddy
Cc: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org; openstack
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack] Need unique ID for every Network Service

Yes..I will send a mail to Eugene Nikanorov, requesting to add this to the agenda in the coming weekly discussion.
Detailed requirement is as follows:
In the current implementation, only one LBaaS configuration is possible per tenant. It is better to have multiple LBaaS configurations for each tenant.
We are planning to configure haproxy as VM in a Network Service Chain. In a chain, there may be possibility of multiple Network Services of the same type (For Eg: Haproxy). For that, each Network Service should have a Unique ID (UUID) for a tenant.

Regards,
Srikanth.

From: Stephen Balukoff [mailto:sbalukoff at bluebox.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 1:22 AM
To: Veera Reddy
Cc: Lingala Srikanth Kumar-B37208; openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>; openstack
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Need unique ID for every Network Service

Hi y'all!

The ongoing debate in the LBaaS group is whether the concept of a 'Loadbalancer' needs to exist  as an entity. If it is decided that we need it, I'm sure it'll have a unique ID. (And please feel free to join the discussion on this as well, eh!)

Stephen

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Veera Reddy <veeraready at gmail.com<mailto:veeraready at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,

Good idea to have unique id for each entry of network functions.
So that we can configure multiple network function with different configuration.


Regards,
Veera.

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Srikanth Kumar Lingala <srikanth.lingala at freescale.com<mailto:srikanth.lingala at freescale.com>> wrote:
Hi-
In the existing Neutron, we have FWaaS, LBaaS, VPNaaS ?etc.
In FWaaS, each Firewall has its own UUID.
It is good to have a unique ID [UUID] for LBaaS also.

Please share your comments on the above.

Regards,
Srikanth.


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev