Open Stack

Hi Kyle:

Are you scheduling an on-demand meeting, or are you proposing that the
agenda for next neutron meeting include this as an on-demand item?

Regards,
Mandeep


On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Kyle Mestery <mestery at mestery.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Sumit Naiksatam
> <sumitnaiksatam at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Several people have been requesting that we resume the Advanced
> > Services' meetings [1] to discuss some of the topics being mentioned
> > in this thread. Perhaps it might help people to have a focussed
> > discussion on the topic of "advanced services' spin-out" prior to the
> > design summit session [2] in Paris. So I propose that we resume our
> > weekly IRC meetings starting this Wednesday (Oct 29th), 17.30 UTC on
> > #openstack-meeting-3.
> >
> Given how important this is to Neutron in general, I would prefer NOT
> to see this discussed in the Advanced Services meeting, but rather in
> the regular Neutron meeting. These are the types of things which need
> broader oversight and involvement. Lets please discuss this in the
> regular Neutron meeting, which is an on-demand meeting format, rather
> than in a sub-team meeting.
>
> > Thanks,
> > ~Sumit.
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/AdvancedServices
> > [2]
> http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/event/8a0b7c1d64883c08286e4446e163f1a6#.VE3Ukot4r4y
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Sridar Kandaswamy (skandasw)
> > <skandasw at cisco.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Doug:
> >>
> >> On 10/26/14, 6:01 PM, "Doug Wiegley" <dougw at a10networks.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi Brandon,
> >>>
> >>>> 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to
> >>>> discuss it at the advanced services spin out session.  I don't see the
> >>>> harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit,
> >>>> and more thoroughly after the summit.
> >>>
> >>>I agree with this sentiment.  I¹d just like to pull-up to the decision
> >>>level, and if we can get some consensus on how we move forward, we can
> >>>bring a concrete plan to the summit instead of 40 minutes of Kumbaya.
> We
> >>>love each other.  Check.  Things are going to change sometime.  Check.
> We
> >>>might spin-out someday.  Check.  Now, let¹s jump to the interesting
> part.
> >>>
> >>>> 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the
> scope
> >>>> for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs
> from
> >>>> the Neutron Core.  If all of advanced services spins out, I see that
> >>>
> >>>There is merit here, but consider the sorts of things that an advanced
> >>>services framework should be doing:
> >>>
> >>>- plugging into neutron ports, with all manner of topologies
> >>>- service VM handling
> >>>- plugging into nova-network
> >>>- service chaining
> >>>- applying things like security groups to services
> >>>
> >>>Š this is all stuff that Octavia is talking about implementing itself
> in a
> >>>basically defensive manner, instead of leveraging other work.  And there
> >>>are specific reasons for that.  But, maybe we can at least take steps to
> >>>not be incompatible about it.  Or maybe there is a hierarchy of Neutron
> ->
> >>>Services -> LB, where we¹re still spun out, but not doing it in a way
> that
> >>>we have to re-implement the world all the time.  It¹s at least worth a
> >>>conversation or three.
> >>
> >> In total agreement and I have heard these sentiments in multiple
> >> conversations across multiple players.
> >> It would be really fruitful to have a constructive conversation on this
> >> across the services, and there are
> >> enough similar issues to make this worthwhile.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Sridar
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>Doug
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On 10/26/14, 6:35 PM, "Brandon Logan" <brandon.logan at RACKSPACE.COM>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Good questions Doug.  My answers are as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>>1. Yes
> >>>>2. Some time after Kilo (same as I don't know when)
> >>>>3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the
> scope
> >>>>for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from
> >>>>the Neutron Core.  If all of advanced services spins out, I see that
> >>>>repeating itself within an advanced services project.  More and more
> >>>>"advanced services" will get added in and the scope will become too
> >>>>large.  There would definitely be benefits to it though, but I think we
> >>>>would end up being right where we are today.
> >>>>4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to
> >>>>discuss it at the advanced services spin out session.  I don't see the
> >>>>harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit,
> >>>>and more thoroughly after the summit.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes the brunt of the time will not be spent on the API, but since it
> >>>>seemed like an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, I figured
> >>>>it warranted a discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>>Thanks,
> >>>>Brandon
> >>>>
> >>>>On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:15 +0000, Doug Wiegley wrote:
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Before we get into the details of which API goes where, I¹d 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 ³we² of ³the Neutron team²)
> >>>>>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 ³where does the API live² is an implementation detail, and
> >>>>>not
> >>>>> where the time will need to be spent.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For the record, my answers are:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Yes.
> >>>>> 2. I don¹t know.
> >>>>> 3. I don¹t 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/8a0b7c1d64883c08286e4446e163f1a
> >>>>>>6
> >>>>>>#.
> >>>>> >VEq66HWx3UY
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >Thanks,
> >>>>> >Brandon
> >>>>> >_______________________________________________
> >>>>> >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
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20141027/a50f065d/attachment.html>