Open Stack

Some comments:

First 5nines is 99.999 % 7nines is a theoretical goal.

1. I disagree if talking about the VMs. Years ago we decided in Scope
Alliance that HA is by definition build on top of unreliable ressources
the HA framework and applications linkage is in charge of the resulting
HA. VMs can stay unreliable and the Iaas model must decrease your Mean
time to repair instead of trying to increase forever your MTBF.

2. Fully agree.

3. I agree for OpenStack services must be "able" to be deployed in a HA
(5nine) manner. This depends as much (if not more) on the deployment,
networks, hardware etc... and should not be mandate to OpenStack globally.

Last but not least the resilience of the "as a service" things
implemented in OpenStack (like VPN, LB, FW, etc.. ) should probably be
capable of being HA.

The overall goal is NFV deployments being able to use OpenStack in their
environments.

My 2 cents..

> 
> In my opinion the first and foremost requirement for NFV ( which is from carrier class ) is 99.99999 ( 5 nines ) reliability.
> If we want OpenStack architecture to scale to Carrier class below are basic thing we need to address.
> 
> 1. There should be a framework from open-stack to support 5 nine level reliability  to Service/Tennant-VM . ? ( Example for Carrier Class NAT Service/ SIP Service/HLR/VLR service/BRAS service)
> 
> 2. They also should be capable of 'In-service up gradation" (ISSU) without service disruption.
> 
> 3. OpenStack itself should ( its own Compute Node/L3/Routing,  Controller )  have (5 nine capable) reliability.
> 
> If we can provide such of infrastructure to NFV then we think of adding rest of requirement .
> 
> Let me know others/NFv people opinion for the same. 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks & regards,
> Keshava.A
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mestery at noironetworks.com] 
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 11:49 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][NFV] NFV BoF at design summit
> 
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Ian Wells <ijw.ubuntu at cack.org.uk> wrote:
>> I think the Service VM discussion resolved itself in a way that 
>> reduces the problem to a form of NFV - there are standing issues using 
>> VMs for services, orchestration is probably not a responsibility that 
>> lies in Neutron, and as such the importance is in identifying the 
>> problems with the plumbing features of Neutron that cause 
>> implementation difficulties.  The end result will be that VMs 
>> implementing tenant services and implementing NFV should be much the 
>> same, with the addition of offering a multitenant interface to Openstack users on the tenant service VM case.
>>
>> Geoff Arnold is dealing with the collating of information from people 
>> that have made the attempt to implement service VMs.  The problem 
>> areas should fall out of his effort.  I also suspect that the key 
>> points of NFV that cause problems (for instance, dealing with VLANs 
>> and trunking) will actually appear quite high up the service VM list as well.
>> --
> There is a weekly meeting for the Service VM project [1], I hope some representatives from the NFB sub-project can make it to this meeting and participate there.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kyle
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ServiceVM
> 
>> Ian.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18 May 2014 20:01, Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Sumit Naiksatam" <sumitnaiksatam at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for initiating this conversation. Unfortunately I was not 
>>>> able to participate during the summit on account of overlapping sessions.
>>>> As has been identified in the wiki and etherpad, there seem to be 
>>>> obvious/potential touch points with the advanced services' 
>>>> discussion we are having in Neutron [1]. Our sub team, and I, will 
>>>> track and participate in this NFV discussion. Needless to say, we 
>>>> are definitely very keen to understand and accommodate the NFV requirements.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> ~Sumit.
>>>> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices
>>>
>>> Yes, there are definitely touch points across a number of different 
>>> existing projects and sub teams. The consensus seemed to be that 
>>> while a lot of people in the community have been working in 
>>> independent groups on advancing the support for NFV use cases in 
>>> OpenStack we haven't necessarily been coordinating our efforts 
>>> effectively. Hopefully having a cross-project sub team will allow us to do this.
>>>
>>> In the BoF sessions we started adding relevant *existing* blueprints 
>>> on the wiki page, we probably need to come up with a more robust way 
>>> to track these from launchpad :). Further proposals will no doubt 
>>> need to be built out from use cases as we discuss them further:
>>>
>>>     https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/NFV
>>>
>>> Feel free to add any blueprints from the Advanced Services efforts 
>>> that were missed!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 

-- 
Best Regards,
Nicolas Thomas   Sales Engineer    -     Canonical
http://goo.gl/rn4ikj
GPG FPR: D592 4185 F099 9031 6590 6292 492F C740 F03A 7EB9

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 538 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140527/8324c9f7/attachment.pgp>