Open Stack

I think you'll like that there will soon be a single create call for the
entire graph/tree of a load balancer so you can get those subnets up
front.  However, the API will still allow creating each entity
individually which you don't like. I have a feeling most clients and UIs
will use the single create call once its available over creating each
individual entity independently.  That should help out mostly.

Thanks,
Brandon

On Sun, 2016-01-17 at 09:05 +0000, Samuel Bercovici wrote:
> Btw.
> 
> I am still in favor on associating the subnets to the LB and then not specify them per node at all.
> 
> -Sam.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Samuel Bercovici [mailto:SamuelB at Radware.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 10:14 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Should subnet be optional on member create?
> 
> +1
> Subnet should be mandatory
> 
> The only thing this makes supporting load balancing servers which are not running in the cloud more challenging to support.
> But I do not see this as a huge user story (lb in cloud load balancing IPs outside the cloud)
> 
> -Sam.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.logan at RACKSPACE.COM] 
> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 6:56 AM
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Should subnet be optional on member create?
> 
> I filed a bug [1] a while ago that subnet_id should be an optional parameter for member creation.  Currently it is required.  Review [2] is makes it optional.
> 
> The original thinking was that if the load balancer is ever connected to that same subnet, be it by another member on that subnet or the vip on that subnet, then the user does not need to specify the subnet for new member if that new member is on one of those subnets.
> 
> At the midcycle we discussed it and we had an informal agreement that it required too many assumptions on the part of the end user, neutron lbaas, and driver.
> 
> If anyone wants to voice their opinion on this matter, do so on the bug report, review, or in response to this thread.  Otherwise, it'll probably be abandoned and not done at some point.
> 
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> 
> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1426248
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/267935/
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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