Open Stack

2015-07-15 5:14 GMT+08:00 Matt Riedemann <mriedem at linux.vnet.ibm.com>:

>
>
> On 7/14/2015 3:43 PM, Cale Rath wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I created a patch to fail on the proxy call to Neutron for used limits,
>> found here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/199604/
>>
>> This patch was done because of this:
>>
>> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/project_scope.html?highlight=proxy#no-more-api-proxies
>> ,
>> where it’s stated that Nova shouldn’t be proxying API calls.
>>
>> That said, Matt Riedemann brings up the point that this breaks the case
>> where Neutron is installed and we want to be more graceful, rather than
>> just raising an exception.  Here are some options:
>>
>> 1. fail - (the code in the patch above)
>> 2. proxy to neutron for floating ips and security groups - that's what
>> the original change was doing back in havana
>> 3. return -1 or something for floatingips/security groups to indicate
>> that we don't know, you have to get those from neutron
>>
>> Does anybody have an opinion on which option we should do regarding API
>> proxies in this case?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Cale Rath
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
> I prefer the proxy option, despite that we don't want to do more proxies
> to other services, it's the least of all evils here in my opinion.
>
> I don't think we can do #1, that breaks anyone using those APIs and is
> using Neutron, so it's a non-starter.
>

agree


>
> #3 is an API change in semantics which would at least be a microversion
> and is kind of clunky.
>

agree too~


>
> For #2 we at least have the nova.network.base_api which we didn't have in
> Havana when I was originally working on this, that would abstract the
> neutron-specific cruft out of the nova-api code.  The calls to neutron were
> pretty simple from what I remember - we could just resurrect the old patch:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/43822/


+1, but looks like this need new microversion also. It means after 2.x
version, this api value is valid for neutron, before 2.x version, don't
trust this api...


>
>
> Another option is #4, we mark the bug as won't fix and we log a warning if
> neutron is configured saying some of the resources aren't going to be
> correct, use the neutron API to get information for quotas on security
> groups, floating IPs, etc.  That's also kind of gross IMO, but it's an
> option.


if we plan to deprecate network proxy api in no longer future, this is easy
option.


>
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt Riedemann
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> 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/20150715/99bc91eb/attachment.html>