Open Stack

Hi Brandon,

The current reviews of the schema itself are absolutely valid and
necessary, and must go on. However, the place of implementation of this
schema needs to be clarified. Rather than make any changes whatsoever to
the existing neutron db schema for LBaaS, this new db schema outlined needs
to be implemented for a separate LBaaS core service.

What we should be providing in neutron is a switch (a global conf) that can
be set to instruct neutron to do one of two things:

1. Use the existing neutron LBaaS API, with the backend being the existing
neutron LBaaS db schema. This is the status quo.
2. Use the existing neutron LBaaS API, with the backend being the new LBaaS
service. This will invoke calls not to neutron's current LBaaS code at all,
rather, it will call into a new set of proxy "backend" code in neutron that
will translate the older LBaaS API calls into the newer REST calls serviced
by the new LBaaS service, which will write down these details accordingly
in its new db schema. As long as the request and response objects to legacy
neutron LBaaS calls are preserved as is, there should be no issues. Writing
unit tests should also be comparatively more straightforward, and old
functional tests can be retained, and newer ones will not clash with legacy
code. Legacy code itself will work, having not been touched at all. The
blueprint for the db schema that you have referenced (
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89903/5/specs/juno/lbaas
-api-and-objmodel-improvement.rst) should be implemented for this new LBaaS
service, post reviews.

The third option would be to turn off neutron LBaaS API, and use the new
LBaaS core service directly, but for this we can simply disable neutron
lbaas, and don't need a config parameter in neutron.

Implementing this db schema within neutron instead will be not just
complicated, but a huge effort that will go waste in future once the new
LBaaS service is implemented. Also, migration will unnecessarily retain the
same steps needed to go from legacy neutron LBaaS to the new core LBaaS
service in this approach (twice, in succession) in case for any reason the
version goes from legacy neutron LBaaS -> new neutron LBaaS -> new LBaaS
core service.

Going forward, the legacy neutron LBaaS API can be deprecated, and the new
API that directly contacts the new LBaaS core service can be used.

We have discussed the above architecture previously, but outside of the ML,
and a draft of the blueprint for this new LBaaS core service is underway,
and is a collation of all the discussions among a large number of LBaaS
engineers including yourself during the summit - I will be posting it for
review within a couple of days, as planned.


Regards,
Vijay


On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Brandon Logan <brandon.logan at rackspace.com
> wrote:

> Referencing this blueprint:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89903/5/specs/juno/lbaas-api-and-objmodel-improvement.rst
>
> Anyone who has suggestions to possible issues or can answer some of
> these questions please respond.
>
>
> 1. LoadBalancer to Listener relationship M:N vs 1:N
> The main reason we went with the M:N was so IPv6 could use the same
> listener as IPv4.  However this can be accomplished by the user just
> creating a second listener and pool with the same configuration.  This
> will end up being a bad user experience when the listener and pool
> configuration starts getting complex (adding in TLS, health monitors,
> SNI, etc). A good reason to not do the M:N is because the logic on might
> get complex when dealing with status.  I'd like to get people's opinions
> on this on whether we should do M:N or just 1:N.  Another option, is to
> just implement 1:N right now and later implement the M:N in another
> blueprint if it is decided that the user experience suffers greatly.
>
> My opinion: I like the idea of leaving it to another blueprint to
> implement.  However, we would need to watch out for any major
> architecture changes in the time itis not implemented that could make
> this more difficult than what it needs to be.
>
> 2. Pool to Health Monitor relationship 1:N vs 1:1
> Currently, I believe this is 1:N however it was suggested to deprecate
> this in favor of 1:1 by Susanne and Kyle agreed.  Are there any
> objections to channging to 1:1?
>
> My opinion: I'm for 1:1 as long as there aren't any major reasons why
> there needs to be 1:N.
>
> 3. Does the Pool object need a status field now that it is a pure
> logical object?
>
> My opinion: I don't think it needs the status field.  I think the
> LoadBalancer object may be the only thing that needs a status, other
> than the pool members for health monitoring.  I might be corrected on
> this though.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140527/bd5f1163/attachment.html>