[openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas][octavia]
Eichberger, German
german.eichberger at hp.com
Tue Sep 2 20:35:46 UTC 2014
+1
On Sep 2, 2014 12:59 PM, Kyle Mestery <mestery at mestery.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com> wrote:
> Inline.
> Salvatore
>
> On 2 September 2014 19:46, Stephen Balukoff <sbalukoff at bluebox.net> wrote:
>>
>> For what it's worth in this discussion, I agree that the possible futures
>> of Octavia already discussed (where it lives, how it relates to Neutron
>> LBaaS, etc.) are all possible. What actually happens here is going to depend
>> both on the Octavia team, the Neutron team (especially when it comes to how
>> the neutron-incubator is practically managed), and anyone else interested in
>> contributing to these projects.
>>
>> Again, for now, I think it's most important to get involved, write code,
>> and start delivering on the immediate, obvious things that need to be done
>> for Octavia.
>
>
> Probably... at least we'll be speculating about something which actually
> exists.
>
To me what makes sense here is that we merge the Octavia code into the
neutron-incubator when the LBaaS V2 code is merged there. If the end
goal is to spin the LBaaS V2 stuff out into a separate git repository
and project (under the networking umbrella), this would allow for the
Octavia driver to be developed alongside the V2 API code, and in fact
help satisfy one of the requirements around Neutron incubation
graduation: Having a functional driver. And it also allows for the
driver to continue to live on next to the API.
What do people think about this?
Thanks,
Kyle
>>
>>
>> In my mind, there are too many unknowns to predict exactly where things
>> will end up in the long run. About the only thing I am certain of is that
>> everyone involving themselves in the Octavia project wants to see it become
>> a part of OpenStack (in whatever way that happens), and that that will
>> certainly not happen if we aren't able to build the operator-scale load
>> balancer we all want.
>>
>>
>> Beyond that, I don't see a whole lot of point to the speculation here. :/
>> (Maybe someone can enlighten me to this point?)
>
>
> I have speculated only to the extent that it was needed for me to understand
> what's the interface between the two things.
> Beyond that, I agree and have already pointed out that there is no urgency
> for prolonging this discussion, unless the lbaas and octavia team feel this
> will have a bearing on short term developments. I don't think so but I do
> not have the full picture.
>
> Talking about pointless things you might want to ensure the name 'octavia'
> is not trademarked before writing lots of code! Renames are painful and some
> openstack projects (like neutron and zaqar) know something about that.
>
>>
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Brandon Logan
>> <brandon.logan at rackspace.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Susanne,
>>>
>>> I believe the options for Octavia are:
>>> 1) Merge into the LBaaS tree (wherever LBaaS is)
>>> 2) Become its own openstack project
>>> 3) Remains in stackforge for eternity
>>>
>>> #1 Is dependent on these options
>>> 1) LBaaS V2 graduates from the incubator into Neutron. V1 is deprecated.
>>> 2) LBaaS V2 remains in incubator until it can be spun out. V1 in
>>> Neutron is deprecated.
>>> 3) LBaaS V2 is abandoned in the incubator and LBaaS V1 remains. (An
>>> unlikely option)
>>>
>>> I don't see any other feasible options.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 12:06 -0400, Susanne Balle wrote:
>>> > Doug
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I agree with you but I need to understand the options. Susanne
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >> 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.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Doug Wiegley <dougw at a10networks.com>
>>> > 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
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephen Balukoff
>> Blue Box Group, LLC
>> (800)613-4305 x807
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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