[openstack-dev] [Nova][Neutron] Status of the nova-network to Neutron migration work
anteaya at anteaya.info
Mon Mar 30 16:50:01 UTC 2015
On 03/30/2015 12:35 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 03/30/2015 10:34 AM, Anita Kuno wrote:
>> On 03/26/2015 08:58 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>>> To me it comes down to the reasons people don't want to move. I'd like
>>> to dig into exactly why people don't want to use Neutron. If there are
>>> legitimate reasons why nova-network will work better, then Neutron has
>>> not met parity and we're certainly not ready to deprecate nova-network.
>>> I still think getting down to a single networking project should be the
>>> end goal. The confusion around networking choices has been detrimental
>>> to OpenStack.
>> I heartily agree.
>> Here is my problem. I am getting the feeling from the big tent
>> discussions (now this could be my fault since I don't know as it is in
>> the proposal or just the "stuff people are making up about it") that we
>> are allowing more than one networking project in OpenStack. I have been
>> disappointed with that impression but that has been the impression I
>> have gotten.
>> I'm glad to hear you have a different perspective on this, Russell, and
>> would just like to clarify this point.
>> Are we saying that OpenStack has one networking option?
> I wouldn't say that exactly. We clearly have two today. :-)
> I don't think anyone intended to have two for as long as we have, and I
> feel that has been detrimental to the OpenStack mission. I'm very
> thankful for the ongoing efforts to rectify that situation.
> My general feeling about overlap in OpenStack is that it's more costly
> the lower we go in the stack. If we think about the "base compute" set
> of projects (like Nova, Glance, Neutron, Keystone, Cinder), I feel we
> should resist overlap there more strongly than we might at the higher
> I think lacking consensus around a networking direction is harmful to
> our mission. I will not say a new networking API should never happen,
> but the bar should be high.
> In fact, this very debate is happening right now on whether or not the
> group based policy project should be accepted as an OpenStack project:
Thank you, Russell. I agree with you and I am grateful that you took the
time to spell it out for the mailing list.
Lack of clarity hurts our users, every decision we make should keep our
users best interests in mind going forward, as you outline in your reply.
More information about the OpenStack-dev