Open Stack

On 2015-09-15 7:44 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> 
> 
> On 15 September 2015 at 15:11, Mathieu Gagné <mgagne at internap.com
> <mailto:mgagne at internap.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 2015-09-15 2:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
>     > We run several clouds where there are multiple external networks. the "just run it in on THE public network" doesn't work. :/
>     >
>     > I also strongly recommend to users to put vms on a private network and use floating ip's/load balancers. For many reasons. Such as, if you don't, the ip that gets assigned to the vm helps it become a pet. you can't replace the vm and get the same IP. Floating IP's and load balancers can help prevent pets. It also prevents security issues with DNS and IP's. Also, for every floating ip/lb I have, I usually have 3x or more the number of instances that are on the private network. Sure its easy to put everything on the public network, but it provides much better security if you only put what you must on the public network. Consider the internet. would you want to expose every device in your house directly on the internet? No. you put them in a private network and poke holes just for the stuff that does. we should be encouraging good security practices. If we encourage bad ones, then it will bite us later when OpenStack gets a reputation for being associated with compromises.
>     >
> 
>     Sorry but I feel this kind of reply explains why people are still using
>     nova-network over Neutron. People want simplicity and they are denied it
>     at every corner because (I feel) Neutron thinks it knows better.
> 
> 
> I am sorry, but how can you associate a person's opinion to a project,
> which is a collectivity? Surely everyone is entitled to his/her opinion,
> but I don't honestly believe these are fair statements to make.

You are right, this is not fair. I apologize for that.


>     The original statement by Monty Taylor is clear to me:
> 
>     I wish to boot an instance that is on a public network and reachable
>     without madness.
> 
>     As of today, you can't unless you implement a deployer/provider specific
>     solution (to scale said network). Just take a look at what actual public
>     cloud providers are doing:
> 
>     - Rackspace has a "magic" public network
>     - GoDaddy has custom code in their nova-scheduler (AFAIK)
>     - iWeb (which I work for) has custom code in front of nova-api.
> 
>     We are all writing our own custom code to implement what (we feel)
>     Neutron should be providing right off the bat.
> 
> 
> What is that you think Neutron should be providing right off the bat? I
> personally have never seen you publicly report usability issues that
> developers could go and look into. Let's escalate these so that the
> Neutron team can be aware.

Please understand that I'm an operator and don't have the luxury to
contribute as much as I did before. I however participate to OpenStack
Ops meetup and this is the kind of things we discuss. You can read the
use cases below to understand what I'm referring to. I don't feel the
need to add yet another version of it since there are already multiple
ones identifying my needs.

People (such as Monty) are already voicing my concerns and I didn't feel
the need to voice mine too.


>     By reading the openstack-dev [1], openstack-operators [2] lists, Neutron
>     specs [3] and the Large Deployment Team meeting notes [4], you will see
>     that what is suggested here (a scalable public shared network) is an
>     objective we wish but are struggling hard to achieve.
> 
> 
> There are many ways to skin this cat IMO, and scalable public shared
> network can really have multiple meanings, I appreciate the pointers
> nonetheless.
>  
> 
> 
>     People keep asking for simplicity and Neutron looks to not be able to
>     offer it due to philosophical conflicts between Neutron developers and
>     actual public users/operators. We can't force our users to adhere to ONE
>     networking philosophy: use NAT, floating IPs, firewall, routers, etc.
>     They just don't buy it. Period. (see monty's list of public providers
>     attaching VMs to public network)
> 
> 
> Public providers networking needs are not the only needs that Neutron
> tries to gather. There's a balance to be struck, and I appreciate that
> the balance may need to be adjusted, but being so dismissive is being
> myopic of the entire industry landscape.

We (my employer) also maintain private clouds and I'm fully aware of the
different between those needs. Therefore I don't think it's fair to say
that my opinion in nearsighted. Nonetheless, I would like this balance
to be adjusted and that's what I'm asking for and glad to see.


>     [1]
>     http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-July/070028.html
>     [2]
>     http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2015-August/007857.html
>     [3]
>     http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/neutron-specs/specs/liberty/get-me-a-network.html
>     [4]
>     http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2015-June/007427.html
> 
>     --
>     Mathieu
> 


-- 
Mathieu