[openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas][octavia]
Brandon Logan
brandon.logan at RACKSPACE.COM
Tue Sep 2 16:27:59 UTC 2014
Yeah I've been worried about the term "driver" being overused here.
However, it might not be too bad if we get the other terminology correct
(network driver, vm/container/appliance driver, etc).
I was thinking of ML2 when I said Octavia living in the LBaaS tree might
be best. I was also thinking that it makes sense if the end goal is for
Octavia to be in openstack. Also, even if it goes into the LBaaS tree,
it doesn't mean it can't be spun out as its own openstack project,
though I do recognize the backwards-ness of that.
That said, I'm not stongly opposed to either options. I just want
everyone involved to be happy, though that is not always going to
happen.
Thanks,
Brandon
On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 15:45 +0000, Doug Wiegley wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> > On the other hand one could also say that Octavia is the ML2
> equivalent of LBaaS. The equivalence here is very loose. Octavia would
> be a service-VM framework for doing load balancing using a variety of
> drivers. The drivers ultimately are in charge of using backends like
> haproxy or nginx running on the service VM to implement lbaas
> configuration.
>
>
> This, exactly. I think it’s much fairer to define Octavia as an LBaaS
> purpose-built service vm framework, which will use nova and haproxy
> initially to provide a highly scalable backend. But before we get into
> terminology misunderstandings, there are a bunch of different
> “drivers” at play here, exactly because this is a framework:
> * Neutron lbaas drivers – what we all know and love
> * Octavia’s “network driver” - this is a piece of glue that
> exists to hide internal calls we have to make into Neutron
> until clean interfaces exist. It might be a no-op in the case
> of an actual neutron lbaas driver, which could serve that
> function instead.
> * Octavia’s “vm driver” - this is a piece of glue between the
> octavia controller and the nova VMs that are doing the load
> balancing.
> * Octavia’s “compute driver” - you guessed it, an abstraction to
> Nova and its scheduler.
> Places that can be the “front-end” for Octavia:
> * Neutron LBaaS v2 driver
> * Neutron LBaaS v1 driver
> * It’s own REST API
> Things that could have their own VM drivers:
> * haproxy, running inside nova
> * Nginx, running inside nova
> * Anything else you want, running inside any hypervisor you want
> * Vendor soft appliances
> * Null-out the VM calls and go straight to some other backend?
> Sure, though I’m not sure I’d see the point.
> There are quite a few synergies with other efforts, and we’re
> monitoring them, but not waiting for any of them.
>
>
> And I agree with Brandon’s sentiments. We need to get something built
> before I’m going to worry too much about where it should live. Is
> this a candidate to get sucked into LBaaS? Sure. Could the reverse
> happen? Sure. Let’s see how it develops.
>
>
> Incidentally, we are currently having a debate over the use of the
> term “vm” (and “vm driver”) as the name to describe octavia’s
> backends. Feel free to chime in
> here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/117701/
>
>
> Thanks,
> doug
>
>
>
>
> From: Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com>
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 9:05 AM
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas][octavia]
>
>
>
> Hi Susanne,
>
>
> I'm just trying to gain a good understanding of the situation here.
> More comments and questions inline.
>
>
> Salvatore
>
> On 2 September 2014 16:34, Susanne Balle <sleipnir012 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Salvatore
>
>
> Thanks for your clarification below around the blueprint.
>
>
> > For LBaaS v2 therefore the relationship between it and
> Octavia should be the same as with any other
> > backend. I see Octavia has a blueprint for a "network
> driver" - and the derivable of that should definitely be
> > part of the LBaaS project.
>
>
> > For the rest, it would seem a bit strange to me if the LBaaS
> project incorporated a backend as well. After
>
> > all, LBaaS v1 did not incorporate haproxy!
> > Also, as Adam points out, Nova does not incorporate an
> Hypervisor.
>
>
> In my vision Octavia is a LBaaS framework that should not be
> tied to ha-proxy. The interfaces should be clean and at a high
> enough level that we can switch load-balancer. We should be
> able to switch the load-balancer to nginx so to me the analogy
> is more Octavia+LBaaSV2 == nova and hypervisor ==
> load-balancer.
>
>
> Indeed I said that it would have been initially tied to haproxy
> considering the blueprints currently defined for octavia, but I'm sure
> the solution could leverage nginx or something else in the future.
>
>
> I think however it is correct to say that LBaaS v2 will have an
> Octavia driver on par with A10, radware, nestscaler and others.
> (Correct me if I'm wrong) On the other hand Octavia, within its
> implementation, might use different drivers - for instance nginx or
> haproxy. And in theory it cannot be excluded that the same appliance
> might implement some vips using haproxy and others using nginx.
>
>
>
>
> I am not sure the group is in agreement on the definition I
> just wrote. Also going back the definition of Octavia being a
> backend then I agree that we should write a blueprint to
> incorporate Octavia as a network driver.
>
>
> What about this blueprint?
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/octavia/+spec/neutron-network-driver
>
>
>
> I guess I had always envisioned what we now call Octavia to be
> part of the LBaaS service itself and have ha-proxy, nginx be
> the drivers and not have the driver level be at the Octavia
> cut-over point, Given this new "design" I am now wondering why
> we didn't just write a driver for Libra and improved on Libra
> since to me that is the now the driver level we are
> discussing.
>
>
> Octavia could be part of the lbaas service just like neutron has a set
> of agents which at the end of the day provide a L2/L3 network
> virtualization service. Personally I'm of the opinion that I would
> move that code in a separate repo which could be maintained by
> networking experts (I can barely plug an ethernet cable into a
> switch). But the current situation creates a case for Octavia
> inclusion in lbaas.
>
>
> On the other hand one could also say that Octavia is the ML2
> equivalent of LBaaS. The equivalence here is very loose. Octavia would
> be a service-VM framework for doing load balancing using a variety of
> drivers. The drivers ultimately are in charge of using backends like
> haproxy or nginx running on the service VM to implement lbaas
> configuration.
> To avoid further discussion it might be better to steer away from
> discussing overlaps and synergies with the service VM project, at
> least for now.
>
>
> I think the ability of having the Libra driver was discussed in the
> past. I do not know the details, but it seemed there was not a lot to
> gain from having a Neutron LBaaS driver pointing to libra (ie: it was
> much easier to just deploy libra instead of neutron lbaas).
>
>
> Summarising, so far I haven't yet an opinion regarding where Octavia
> will sit.
> Nevertheless I think this is a discussion that it's useful for the
> medium/long term - it does not seem to me that there is an urgency
> here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards Susanne
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Salvatore Orlando
> <sorlando at nicira.com> wrote:
> Some more comments from me inline.
>
> Salvatore
>
>
> On 2 September 2014 11:06, Adam Harwell
> <adam.harwell at rackspace.com> wrote:
> I also agree with most of what Brandon said,
> though I am slightly
> concerned by the talk of merging Octavia and
> [Neutron-]LBaaS-v2 codebases.
>
>
> Beyond all the reasons listed in this thread - merging
> codebases is always more difficult that what it seems!
> Also it seems to me there's not yet a clear path for
> LBaaS v2. Mostly because of the ongoing neutron
> incubator discussion.
> However in my opinion there are 3 paths (and I have no
> idea whether they might be applicable to Octavia as a
> standalone project).
> 1) Aim at becoming part of neutron via the incubator
> or any equivalent mechanisms
> 2) Evolve in loosely coupled fashion with neutron, but
> still be part of the networking program. (This means
> that LBaaS APIs will be part of Openstack Network
> APIs)
> 3) Evolve independently from neutron, and become part
> of a new program. I have no idea however whether
> there's enough material to have a "load balancing"
> program, and what would be the timeline for that.
>
>
>
> [blogan] "I think the best course of action is
> to get Octavia itself into
> the same codebase as LBaaS (Neutron or spun
> out)."
>
> [sballe] "What I am trying to now understand
> is how we will move Octavia
> into the new LBaaS project?"
>
>
>
> I didn't think that was ever going to be the
> plan -- sure, we'd have an
> Octavia driver that is part of the
> [Neutron-]LBaaS-v2 codebase (which
> Susanne did mention as well), but nothing more
> than that. The actual
> Octavia code would still be in its own project
> at the end of all of this,
> right? The driver code could be added to
> [Neutron-]LbaaS-v2 at any point
> once Octavia is mature enough to be used, just
> by submitting it as a CR, I
> believe. Doug might be able to comment on
> that, since he maintains the A10
> driver?
>
>
> From what I gathered so far Octavia is a fully fledged
> load balancing virtual appliance which (at least in
> its first iterations) will leverage haproxy.
> As also stated earlier in this thread it's a peer of
> commercial appliances from various vendors.
>
>
> For LBaaS v2 therefore the relationship between it and
> Octavia should be the same as with any other backend.
> I see Octavia has a blueprint for a "network driver" -
> and the derivable of that should definitely be part of
> the LBaaS project.
> For the rest, it would seem a bit strange to me if the
> LBaaS project incorporated a backend as well. After
> all, LBaaS v1 did not incorporate haproxy!
> Also, as Adam points out, Nova does not incorporate an
> Hypervisor.
>
>
> Also, I know I'm opening this same can of
> worms again, but I am curious
> about the HP mandate that "everything must be
> OpenStack" when it comes to
> Octavia. Since HP's offering would be
> "[Neutron-]LBaaS-v2", which happens
> to use Octavia as a backend, does it matter
> whether Octavia is an official
> OpenStack project**? If HP can offer Cloud
> Compute through Nova, and Nova
> uses some hypervisor like Xen or KVM (neither
> of which are a part of
> OpenStack), I am not sure how it is different
> to offer Cloud Load
> Balancing via [Neutron-]LBaaS-v2 which could
> be using a non-Openstack
> implementation for the backend. I don't see
> "Octavia needs to be in
> Openstack" as a blocker so long as the "LBaaS
> API" is part of OpenStack.
>
> **NOTE: I AM DEFINITELY STILL IN FAVOR OF
> OCTAVIA BEING AN OPENSTACK
> PROJECT. THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE FOR THE SAKE
> OF THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT.
> PLEASE DON'T THINK THAT I'M AGAINST OCTAVIA
> BEING OFFICIALLY INCUBATED!**
>
>
> --Adam
>
>
> https://keybase.io/rm_you
>
>
>
> On 9/1/14 10:12 PM, "Brandon Logan"
> <brandon.logan at RACKSPACE.COM> wrote:
>
> >Hi Susanne and everyone,
> >
> >My opinions are that keeping it in stackforge
> until it gets mature is
> >the best solution. I'm pretty sure we can
> all agree on that. Whenever
> >it is mature then, and only then, we should
> try to get it into openstack
> >one way or another. If Neutron LBaaS v2 is
> still incubated then it
> >should be relatively easy to get it in that
> codebase. If Neutron LBaaS
> >has already spun out, even easier for us. If
> we want Octavia to just
> >become an openstack project all its own then
> that will be the difficult
> >part.
> >
> >I think the best course of action is to get
> Octavia itself into the same
> >codebase as LBaaS (Neutron or spun out).
> They do go together, and the
> >maintainers will almost always be the same
> for both. This makes even
> >more sense when LBaaS is spun out into its
> own project.
> >
> >I really think all of the answers to these
> questions will fall into
> >place when we actually deliver a product that
> we are all wanting and
> >talking about delivering with Octavia. Once
> we prove that we can all
> >come together as a community and manage a
> product from inception to
> >maturity, we will then have the respect and
> trust to do what is best for
> >an Openstack LBaaS product.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Brandon
> >
> >On Mon, 2014-09-01 at 10:18 -0400, Susanne
> Balle wrote:
> >> Kyle, Adam,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Based on this thread Kyle is suggesting the
> follow moving forward
> >> plan:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 1) We incubate Neutron LBaaS V2 in the
> ³Neutron² incubator ³and freeze
> >> LBaas V1.0²
> >> 2) ³Eventually² It graduates into a project
> under the networking
> >> program.
> >> 3) ³At that point² We deprecate Neutron
> LBaaS v1.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The words in ³xx³ are works I added to make
> sure I/We understand the
> >> whole picture.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> And as Adam mentions: Octavia != LBaaS-v2.
> Octavia is a peer to F5 /
> >> Radware / A10 / etc appliances which is a
> definition I agree with BTW.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> What I am trying to now understand is how
> we will move Octavia into
> >> the new LBaaS project?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If we do it later rather than develop
> Octavia in tree under the new
> >> incubated LBaaS project when do we plan to
> bring it in-tree from
> >> Stackforge? Kilo? Later? When LBaaS is a
> separate project under the
> >> Networking program?
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> What are the criteria to bring a driver
> into the LBaaS project and
> >> what do we need to do to replace the
> existing reference driver? Maybe
> >> adding a software driver to LBaaS source
> tree is less of a problem
> >> than converting a whole project to an
> OpenStack project.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Again I am open to both directions I just
> want to make sure we
> >> understand why we are choosing to do one or
> the other and that our
> >> decision is based on data and not
> emotions.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I am assuming that keeping Octavia in
> Stackforge will increase the
> >> velocity of the project and allow us more
> freedom which is goodness.
> >> We just need to have a plan to make it part
> of the Openstack LBaaS
> >> project.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards Susanne
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Adam
> Harwell
> >> <adam.harwell at rackspace.com> wrote:
> >> Only really have comments on two of
> your related points:
> >>
> >>
> >> [Susanne] To me Octavia is a driver
> so it is very hard to me
> >> to think of it as a standalone
> project. It needs the new
> >> Neutron LBaaS v2 to function which
> is why I think of them
> >> together. This of course can change
> since we can add whatever
> >> layers we want to Octavia.
> >>
> >>
> >> [Adam] I guess I've always shared
> Stephen's
> >> viewpoint ‹ Octavia != LBaaS-v2.
> Octavia is a peer to F5 /
> >> Radware / A10 / etcappliances, not
> to an Openstack API layer
> >> like Neutron-LBaaS. It's a little
> tricky to clearly define
> >> this difference in conversation,
> and I have noticed that quite
> >> a few people are having the same
> issue differentiating. In a
> >> small group, having quite a few
> people not on the same page is
> >> a bit scary, so maybe we need to
> really sit down and map this
> >> out so everyone is together one way
> or the other.
> >>
> >>
>
> >> [Susanne] Ok now I am confusedŠ But
> I agree with you that it
> >> need to focus on our use cases. I
> remember us discussing
> >> Octavia being the refenece
> implementation for OpenStack LBaaS
> >> (whatever that is). Has that
> changed while I was on vacation?
> >>
> >>
> >> [Adam] I believe that having the
> Octavia "driver" (not the
> >> Octavia codebase itself,
> technically) become the reference
> >> implementation for Neutron-LBaaS is
> still the plan in my eyes.
> >> The Octavia Driver in Neutron-LBaaS
> is a separate bit of code
> >> from the actual Octavia project,
> similar to the way the A10
> >> driver is a separate bit of code
> from the A10 appliance. To do
> >> that though, we need Octavia to be
> fairly close to fully
> >> functional. I believe we can do
> this because even though the
> >> reference driver would then require
> an additional service to
> >> run, what it requires is still
> fully-open-source and (by way
> >> of our plan) available as part of
> OpenStack core.
> >>
> >>
> >> --Adam
> >>
> >>
> >> https://keybase.io/rm_you
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Susanne Balle
> <sleipnir012 at gmail.com>
> >> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development
> Mailing List (not for usage
> >> questions)"
> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> >> Date: Friday, August 29, 2014 9:19
> AM
> >> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing
> List (not for usage
> >> questions)"
> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev]
> [neutron][lbaas][octavia]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Stephen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> See inline comments.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Susanne
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> -----------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Susanne--
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I think you are conflating
> the difference between
> >> "OpenStack incubation" and
> "Neutron incubator." These
> >> are two very different
> matters and should be treated
> >> separately. So, addressing
> each one individually:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "OpenStack Incubation"
> >>
> >> I think this has been the
> end-goal of Octavia all
> >> along and continues to be
> the end-goal. Under this
> >> scenario, Octavia is its
> own stand-alone project with
> >> its own PTL and core
> developer team, its own
> >> governance, and should
> eventually become part of the
> >> integrated OpenStack
> release. No project ever starts
> >> out as "OpenStack
> incubated."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [Susanne] I totally agree
> that the end goal is for
> >> Neutron LBaaS to become its
> own incubated project. I
> >> did miss the nuance that
> was pointed out by Mestery in
> >> an earlier email that if a
> Neutron incubator project
> >> wants to become a separate
> project it will have to
> >> apply for incubation again
> or at that time. It was my
> >> understanding that such a
> Neutron incubated project
> >> would be grandfathered in
> but again we do not have
> >> much details on the process
> yet.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To me Octavia is a driver
> so it is very hard to me to
> >> think of it as a standalone
> project. It needs the new
> >> Neutron LBaaS v2 to
> function which is why I think of
> >> them together. This of
> course can change since we can
> >> add whatever layers we want
> to Octavia.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Neutron Incubator"
> >>
> >> This has only become a
> serious discussion in the last
> >> few weeks and has yet to
> land, so there are many
> >> assumptions about this
> which don't pan out (either
> >> because of purposeful
> design and governance decisions,
> >> or because of how this
> project actually ends up being
> >> implemented from a
> practical standpoint). But given
> >> the inherent limitations
> about making statements with
> >> so many unknowns, the
> following seem fairly clear from
> >> what has been shared so
> far:
> >>
> >> · Neutron incubator is the
> on-ramp for projects which
> >> should eventually become a
> part of Neutron itself.
> >>
> >> · Projects which enter the
> Neutron incubator on-ramp
> >> should be fairly close to
> maturity in their final
> >> form. I think the intent
> here is for them to live in
> >> incubator for 1 or 2 cycles
> before either being merged
> >> into Neutron core, or being
> ejected (as abandoned, or
> >> as a separate project).
> >>
> >> · Neutron incubator
> projects effectively do not have
> >> their own PTL and core
> developer team, and do not have
> >> their own governance.
> >>
> >> [Susanne] Ok I missed the
> last point. In an earlier
> >> discussion Mestery implied
> that an incubated project
> >> would have at least one or
> two of its own cores. Maybe
> >> that changed between now
> and then.
> >>
> >> In addition we know the
> following about Neutron LBaaS
> >> and Octavia:
> >>
> >> · It's already
> (informally?) agreed that the ultimate
> >> long-term place for a LBaaS
> solution is probably to be
> >> spun out into its own
> project, which might
> >> appropriately live under a
> yet-to-be-defined master
> >> "Networking" project. (This
> would make Neutron, LBaaS,
> >> VPNaaS, FWaaS, etc.
> effective "peer" projects under
> >> the Networking umbrella.)
> Since this "Networking"
> >> umbrella project has even
> less defined about it than
> >> Neutron incubator, it's
> impossible to know whether
> >> being a part of Neutron
> incubator would be of any
> >> benefit to Octavia (or,
> conversely, to Neutron
> >> incubator) at all as an
> on-ramp to becoming part of
> >> "Networking." Presumably,
> Octavia might fit well under
> >> the "Networking" umbrella--
> but, again, with nothing
> >> defined there it's
> impossible to draw any reasonable
> >> conclusions at this time.
> >>
> >> [Susanne] We are in
> agreement here. This was the
> >> reasons we had the ad-hoc
> meeting in Atlanta so get a
> >> feel for hw people felt if
> we made Neutron LBaaS its
> >> own project and also how we
> got an operator large
> >> scale LBaaS that fit most
> of our service provider
> >> requirements. I am just
> worried because you keep on
> >> talking of Octavia as a
> standaloe project. To me it is
> >> an extension of Neutron
> LBaaS or of a new LBaaS Š. I
> >> do not see us (== me) use
> Octavia in a non OpenStack
> >> context. And yes it is a
> driver that I am hoping we
> >> all expect to become the
> reference implementation for
> >> LBaaS.
> >>
> >> · When the LBaaS component
> spins out of Neutron, it
> >> will more than likely not
> be Octavia. Octavia
> >> is intentionally less
> friendly to 3rd party load
> >> balancer vendors both
> because it's envisioned that
> >> Octavia would just be
> another implementation which
> >> lives along-side said 3rd
> party vendor products
> >> (plugging into a higher
> level LBaaS layer via a
> >> driver), and because we
> don't want to have to
> >> compromise certain design
> features of Octavia to meet
> >> the lowest common
> denominator 3rd party vendor
> >> product. (3rd party vendors
> are welcome, but we will
> >> not make design compromises
> to meet the needs of a
> >> proprietary product--
> compatibility with available
> >> open-source products and
> standards trumps this.)
> >>
>
> >> [Susanne] Ok now I am
> confusedŠ But I agree with you
> >> that it need to focus on
> our use cases. I remember us
> >> discussing Octavia being
> the refenece implementation
> >> for OpenStack LBaaS
> (whatever that is). Has that
> >> changed while I was on
> vacation?
> >>
> >> The end-game for the above
> point is: In the future I
> >> see "Openstack LBaaS" (or
> whatever the project calls
> >> itself) being a separate
> but complimentary project to
> >> Octavia.
> >>
> >> · While its true that we
> would like Octavia to become
> >> the reference
> implementation for Neutron LBaaS, we are
> >> nowhere near being able to
> deliver on that. Attempting
> >> to become a part of Neutron
> LBaaS right now is likely
> >> just to create frustration
> (and very little merged
> >> code) for both the Octavia
> and Neutron teams.
> >>
> >> [Susanne] Agreed.
> >>
> >> So given that the only code
> in Octavia right now are a
> >> few database migrations, we
> are very, very far away
> >> from being ready for either
> OpenStack incubation or
> >> the Neutron incubator
> project. I don't think it's very
> >> useful to be spending time
> right now worrying about
> >> either of these outcomes:
> We should be working on
> >> Octavia!
> >>
> >> [Susanne] Agreed. You
> suggested we discuss this on the
> >> ML NOW. I wanted to wait
> until the summit given that
> >> we would have more info on
> Neutron incubation, etc. I
> >> haven¹t seen much written
> down on the Neutron
> >> incubator project so most
> of what we are doing is
>
> >> guessingŠ.
> >>
> >> Please also understand: I
> realize that probably the
> >> reason you're asking this
> right now is because you
> >> have a mandate within your
> organization to use only
> >> "official" OpenStack
> branded components, and if
> >> Octavia doesn't fall within
> that category, you won't
> >> be able to use it. Of
> course everyone working on this
> >> project wants to make that
> happen too, so we're doing
> >> everything we can to make
> sure we don't jeopardize
> >> that possibility. And there
> are enough voices in this
> >> project that want that to
> happen, so I think if we
> >> strayed from the path to
> get there, there would be
> >> sufficient clangor over
> this that it would be hard to
> >> miss. But I don't think
> there's anyone at all at this
> >> time that can honestly give
> you a promise that Octavia
> >> definitely will be
> incubated and will definitely end
> >> up in the integrated
> OpenStack release.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If you want to increase the
> chances of that happening,
> >> please help push the
> project forward!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [Susanne] That is what HP
> is doing. Remember we were
> >> here from the beginning
> helping change the direction
> >> for LBaaS.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Stephen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at
> 9:52 PM, Stephen Balukoff
> >> <sbalukoff at bluebox.net>
> wrote:
> >> Susanne--
> >>
> >>
> >> I think you are
> conflating the difference
> >> between "OpenStack
> incubation" and "Neutron
> >> incubator." These
> are two very different
> >> matters and should
> be treated separately. So,
> >> addressing each one
> individually:
> >>
> >>
> >> "OpenStack
> Incubation"
> >> I think this has
> been the end-goal of Octavia
> >> all along and
> continues to be the end-goal.
> >> Under this
> scenario, Octavia is its own
> >> stand-alone project
> with its own PTL and core
> >> developer team, its
> own governance, and should
> >> eventually become
> part of the integrated
> >> OpenStack release.
> No project ever starts out
> >> as "OpenStack
> incubated."
> >>
> >>
> >> "Neutron Incubator"
> >> This has only
> become a serious discussion in
> >> the last few weeks
> and has yet to land, so
> >> there are many
> assumptions about this which
> >> don't pan out
> (either because of purposeful
> >> design and
> governance decisions, or because of
> >> how this project
> actually ends up being
> >> implemented from a
> practical standpoint). But
> >> given the inherent
> limitations about making
> >> statements with so
> many unknowns, the
> >> following seem
> fairly clear from what has been
> >> shared so far:
> >> * Neutron
> incubator is the on-ramp for
> >> projects
> which should eventually
> >> become a
> part of Neutron itself.
> >> * Projects
> which enter the Neutron
> >> incubator
> on-ramp should be fairly
> >> close to
> maturity in their final form.
> >> I think the
> intent here is for them to
> >> live in
> incubator for 1 or 2 cycles
> >> before
> either being merged into
> >> Neutron
> core, or being ejected (as
> >> abandoned,
> or as a separate project).
> >> * Neutron
> incubator projects effectively
> >> do not have
> their own PTL and core
> >> developer
> team, and do not have their
> >> own
> governance.
> >> In addition we know
> the following about
> >> Neutron LBaaS and
> Octavia:
> >> * It's
> already (informally?) agreed that
> >> the
> ultimate long-term place for a
> >> LBaaS
> solution is probably to be spun
> >> out into
> its own project, which might
> >>
> appropriately live under a
> >>
> yet-to-be-defined master "Networking"
> >> project.
> (This would make Neutron,
> >> LBaaS,
> VPNaaS, FWaaS, etc. effective
> >> "peer"
> projects under the Networking
> >> umbrella.)
> Since this "Networking"
> >> umbrella
> project has even less defined
> >> about it
> than Neutron incubator, it's
> >> impossible
> to know whether being a
> >> part of
> Neutron incubator would be of
> >> any benefit
> to Octavia (or,
> >> conversely,
> to Neutron incubator) at
> >> all as an
> on-ramp to becoming part of
> >>
> "Networking." Presumably, Octavia
> >> might fit
> well under the "Networking"
> >> umbrella--
> but, again, with nothing
> >> defined
> there it's impossible to draw
> >> any
> reasonable conclusions at this
> >> time.
> >> * When the
> LBaaS component spins out of
> >> Neutron, it
> will more than likely not
> >> be Octavia.
> Octavia is intentionally
> >> less
> friendly to 3rd party load
> >> balancer
> vendors both because it's
> >> envisioned
> that Octavia would just be
> >> another
> implementation which lives
> >> along-side
> said 3rd party vendor
> >> products
> (plugging into a higher level
> >> LBaaS layer
> via a driver), and because
> >> we don't
> want to have to compromise
> >> certain
> design features of Octavia to
> >> meet the
> lowest common denominator 3rd
> >> party
> vendor product. (3rd party
> >> vendors are
> welcome, but we will not
> >> make design
> compromises to meet the
> >> needs of a
> proprietary product--
> >>
> compatibility with available
> >> open-source
> products and standards
> >> trumps
> this.)
> >> * The
> end-game for the above point is:
> >> In the
> future I see "Openstack
> >> LBaaS" (or
> whatever the project calls
> >> itself)
> being a separate but
> >>
> complimentary project to Octavia.
> >> * While its
> true that we would like
> >> Octavia to
> become the reference
> >>
> implementation for Neutron LBaaS, we
> >> are nowhere
> near being able to deliver
> >> on that.
> Attempting to become a part
> >> of Neutron
> LBaaS right now is likely
> >> just to
> create frustration (and very
> >> little
> merged code) for both the
> >> Octavia and
> Neutron teams.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So given that the
> only code in Octavia right
> >> now are a few
> database migrations, we are
> >> very, very far away
> from being ready for
> >> either OpenStack
> incubation or the Neutron
> >> incubator project.
> I don't think it's very
> >> useful to be
> spending time right now worrying
> >> about either of
> these outcomes: We should be
> >> working on Octavia!
> >>
> >>
> >> Please also
> understand: I realize that
> >> probably the reason
> you're asking this right
> >> now is because you
> have a mandate within your
> >> organization to use
> only "official" OpenStack
> >> branded components,
> and if Octavia doesn't
> >> fall within that
> category, you won't be able
> >> to use it. Of
> course everyone working on this
> >> project wants to
> make that happen too, so
> >> we're doing
> everything we can to make sure we
> >> don't jeopardize
> that possibility. And there
> >> are enough voices
> in this project that want
> >> that to happen, so
> I think if we strayed from
> >> the path to get
> there, there would be
> >> sufficient clangor
> over this that it would be
> >> hard to miss. But I
> don't think there's anyone
> >> at all at this time
> that can honestly give you
> >> a promise that
> Octavia definitely will be
> >> incubated and will
> definitely end up in the
> >> integrated
> OpenStack release.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you want to
> increase the chances of that
> >> happening, please
> help push the project
> >> forward!
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Stephen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 28,
> 2014 at 2:57 PM, Susanne Balle
> >>
> <sleipnir012 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I would
> like to discuss the pros and
> >> cons of
> putting Octavia into the
> >> Neutron
> LBaaS incubator project right
> >> away. If it
> is going to be the
> >> reference
> implementation for LBaaS v 2
> >> then I
> believe Octavia belong in
> >> Neutron
> LBaaS v2 incubator.
> >>
> >>
> >> The Pros:
> >> * Octavia
> is in Openstack incubation
> >> right away
> along with the lbaas v2
> >> code. We do
> not have to apply for
> >> incubation
> later on.
> >> * As
> incubation project we have our
> >> own core
> and should be able ot commit
> >> our code
> >> * We are
> starting out as an OpenStack
> >> incubated
> project
> >>
> >>
> >> The Cons:
> >> * Not sure
> of the velocity of the
> >> project
> >> *
> Incubation not well defined.
> >>
> >>
> >> If Octavia
> starts as a standalone
> >> stackforge
> project we are assuming
> >> that it
> would be looked favorable on
> >> when time
> is to move it into incubated
> >> status.
> >>
> >>
> >> Susanne
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>
> 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
More information about the OpenStack-dev
mailing list