Open Stack

Hi all,

Before we get into the details of which API goes where, I’d like to see us
answer the questions of:

1. Are we spinning out?
2. When?
3. With or without the rest of advanced services?
4. Do we want to wait until we (the royal “we” of “the Neutron team”) have
had the Paris summit discussions on vendor split-out and adv. services
spinout before we answer those questions?  (Yes, that question is leading.)

To me, the “where does the API live” is an implementation detail, and not
where the time will need to be spent.

For the record, my answers are:

1. Yes.
2. I don’t know.
3. I don’t know; this needs some serious discussion.
4. Yes.

Thanks,
doug

On 10/24/14, 3:47 PM, "Brandon Logan" <brandon.logan at RACKSPACE.COM> wrote:

>With the recent talk about advanced services spinning out of Neutron,
>and the fact most of the LBaaS community has wanted LBaaS to spin out of
>Neutron, I wanted to bring up a possibility and gauge interest and
>opinion on this possibility.
>
>Octavia is going to (and has) an API.  The current thinking is that an
>Octavia driver will be created in Neutron LBaaS that will make a
>requests to the Octavia API.  When LBaaS spins out of Neutron, it will
>need a standalone API.  Octavia's API seems to be a good solution to
>this.  It will support vendor drivers much like the current Neutron
>LBaaS does.  It has a similar API as Neutron LBaaS v2, but its not an
>exact duplicate.  Octavia will be growing more mature in stackforge at a
>higher velocity than an Openstack project, so I expect by the time Kilo
>comes around it's API will be very mature.
>
>Octavia's API doesn't have to be called Octavia either.  It can be
>separated out and it can be called Openstack LBaaS, and the rest of
>Octavia (the actual brains of it) will just be another driver to
>Openstack LBaaS, which would retain the Octavia name.
>
>This is my PROS and CONS list to using Octavia's API as the spun out
>LBaaS:
>
>PROS
>1. Time will need to be spent on a spun out LBaaS's API anyway.  Octavia
>will already have this done.
>2. Most of the same people working on Octavia have worked on Neutron
>LBaaS v2.
>3. It's out of Neutron faster, which is good for Neutron and LBaaS.
>
>CONS
>1. The Octavia API is dissimilar enough from Neutron LBaaS v2 to be yet
>another version of an LBaaS API.
>2. The Octavia API will also have a separate Operator API which will
>most likely only work with Octavia, not any vendors.
>
>The CONS are easily solvable, and IMHO the PROS greatly outweigh the
>CONS.
>
>This is just my opinion though and I'd like to hear back from as many as
>possible.  Add on to the PROS and CONS if wanted.
>
>If it is direction we can agree on going then we can add as a talking
>point in the advanced services spin out meeting:
>
>http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/event/8a0b7c1d64883c08286e4446e163f1a6#.
>VEq66HWx3UY
>
>Thanks,
>Brandon
>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev