Open Stack

Hi Eugene,

Since this debate has come and gone before, I'd like to thank you for
having the patience to still be debating with us about it.  It's
requiring a lot of patience for everyone on both sides of the argument.
A debate like this can be healthy though.

I, too, have not heard clear and concise reasons why the core team
members would not like a logical load balancer object, or a load
balancer object that maps to many vips, which in turn maps to many
listeners.  I've been to every LBaaS meeting for months now I think, and
I just remember that you and others have said the core team members
object to it, but not any clear reasons.  Would it be possible for you
to point us to an IRC chat log or a ML thread that does discuss that?

A lot of operators have come into this project lately and most (if not
all) would prefer an API construct like the one BBG and Rackspace have
agreed on.  This reason alone should be enough to revisit the topic with
the core team members so we operators can fully understand their
objections.  I believe operators should play a large role in Openstack
and their opinions and reasons why should be heard.

Thanks,
Brandon Logan

On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 10:52 +0400, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> 
>         
>         On May 9, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Eugene Nikanorov
>         <enikanorov at mirantis.com>
>          wrote:
>         
>         > Also we've heard objection to this approach several times
>         > from other core team members (this discussion has been going
>         > for more than half a year now), so I would suggest to move
>         > forward with single L2 port approach.
>         
>             Objections to multiple ports per loadbalancer or
>         objections to the Loadbalancer object itself?
>         
>         
>             If its the latter then you may have a valid argument by
>         authority but its impossible to verify because these "core
>         team members" are remaining silent through out all these
>         discussions. We can't  be dissuaded due to FUD(Fear,
>         Uncertainty and Doub)t  that these silent core team members
>         will suddenly reject this discussion in the future. We aren't
>         going to put our users at risk due to FUD.
> I think you had a chance to hear this argument yourself (from several
> different core members: Mark McClain, Salvatore Orlando, Kyle Mestery)
> on those meetings we had in past 2 months.
> I was advocating 'loadbalancer' (in it's extended version) once too,
> receiving negative opinions as well.
> In general this approach puts too much of control of a backend to
> user's hands and this goes in opposite direction than neutron project.
> 
> 
> If it's just about the name of the root object - VIP suits this role
> too, so I'm fine with that. I also find VIP/Listeners model a bit more
> clearer per definitions in our glossary.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Eugene.
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev