Open Stack

Geoff

I noticed the following two blueprints:


https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/adv-services-in-vms


This blueprint defines a framework for creating, managing and deploying
Neutron advanced services implemented as virtual machines. The goal is to
enable advanced network services (e.g. Load Balancing, Security,
Monitoring) that may be supplied by third party vendors, are deployed as
virtual machines, and are launched and inserted into the tenant network on
demand.

https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dynamic-network-resource-mgmt


This blueprint proposes the addition to OpenStack of a framework for
dynamic network resource management (DNRM). This framework includes a new
OpenStack resource management and provisioning service, a refactored scheme
for Neutron API extensions, a policy-based resource allocation system, and
dynamic mapping of resources to plugins. It is intended to address a number
of use cases, including multivendor environments, policy-based resource
scheduling, and virtual appliance provisioning. We are proposing this as a
single blueprint in order to create an efficiently integrated
implementation.


the latter was submitted by you. This sounds like step in the right
direction and I would like to understand the designs/scope/limitation in a
little more details.


What is the status of your blueprint? Any early designs/use cases that you
would be willing to share?


Regards Susanne




On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Geoff Arnold <geoff at geoffarnold.com>wrote:

> There are (at least) two ways of expressing differentiation:
> - through an API extension, visible to the tenant
> - though an internal policy mechanism, with specific policies inferred
> from tenant or network characteristics
>
> Both have their place. Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that
> differentiation requires API extension.
>
> Sent from my iPhone - please excuse any typos or "creative" spelling
> corrections!
>
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Eugene Nikanorov <enikanorov at mirantis.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:26 AM, John Dewey <john at dewey.ws> wrote:
>
>>  I have a similar concern.  The underlying driver may support different
>> functionality, but the differentiators need exposed through the top level
>> API.
>>
> Not really, whole point of the service is to abstract the user from
> specifics of backend implementation. So for any feature there is a common
> API, not specific to any implementation.
>
> There probably could be some exception to this guide line that lays in the
> area of admin API, but that's yet to be discussed.
>
>>
>> I see the SSL work is well underway, and I am in the process of defining
>> L7 scripting requirements.  However, I will definitely need L7 scripting
>> prior to the API being defined.
>> Is this where vendor extensions come into play?  I kinda like the route
>> the Ironic guy safe taking with a "vendor passthru" API.
>>
> I may say that core team has rejected 'vendor extensions' idea due to
> potential non-uniform user API experience. That becomes even worse with
> flavors introduced, because users don't know what vendor is backing up the
> service they have created.
>
> Thanks,
> Eugene.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140327/34a1379d/attachment.html>