Open Stack

On 08/31/2016 02:16 AM, joehuang wrote:
> Hello, team,
> 
> During last weekly meeting, we discussed how to address TCs concerns in
> Tricircle big-tent application. After the weekly meeting, the proposal
> was co-prepared by our
> contributors: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kpVo5rsL6p_rq9TvkuczjommJSsisDiKJiurbhaQg7E
> 
> The more doable way is to divide Tricircle into two independent and
> decoupled projects, only one of the projects which deal with networking
> automation will try to become an big-tent project, And Nova/Cinder
> API-GW will be removed from the scope of big-tent project application,
> and put them into another project:
> 
> *TricircleNetworking:* Dedicated for cross Neutron networking automation
> in multi-region OpenStack deployment, run without or with
> TricircleGateway. Try to become big-tent project in the current
> application of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338796/.

Great idea.

> *TricircleGateway:* Dedicated to provide API gateway for those who need
> single Nova/Cinder API endpoint in multi-region OpenStack deployment,
> run without or with TricircleNetworking. Live as non-big-tent,
> non-offical-openstack project, just like Tricircle toady’s status. And
> not pursue big-tent only if the consensus can be achieved in OpenStack
> community, including Arch WG and TCs, then decide how to get it on board
> in OpenStack. A new repository is needed to be applied for this project.
> 
> 
> And consider to remove some overlapping implementation in Nova/Cinder
> API-GW for global objects like flavor, volume type, we can configure one
> region as master region, all global objects like flavor, volume type,
> server group, etc will be managed in the master Nova/Cinder service. In
> Nova API-GW/Cinder API-GW, all requests for these global objects will be
> forwarded to the master Nova/Cinder, then to get rid of any API
> overlapping-implementation.
> 
> More information, you can refer to the proposal draft
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kpVo5rsL6p_rq9TvkuczjommJSsisDiKJiurbhaQg7E,
> 
> your thoughts are welcome, and let's have more discussion in this weekly
> meeting.

I think this is a great approach Joe.