Carlos,
We are in Israel and would like the meeting to happen at a more favorable time
to us, for example 9:00AM CDT.
-Sam.
From: Carlos Puga [mailto:carlos.p...@walmart.com]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 7:04 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
]Removing LBaaS v1 - are weready?
Ok, for what it’s worth we have contributed our migration script:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/289595/ — please look at this as a starting
point and feel free to fix potential problems…
Thanks,
German
On 3/7/16, 11:00 AM, "Samuel Bercovici" <samu..
fferent VIPs so the
end user would need to change their IPs…
Thanks,
German
On 3/6/16, 5:35 AM, "Samuel Bercovici" <samu...@radware.com> wrote:
>As for a migration tool.
>Due to model changes and deployment changes between LBaaS v1 and LBaaS v2, I
>am in favor f
with different VIPs so the
end user would need to change their IPs…
Thanks,
German
On 3/6/16, 5:35 AM, "Samuel Bercovici" <samu...@radware.com> wrote:
>As for a migration tool.
>Due to model changes and deployment changes between LBaaS v1 and LBaaS v2, I
>am in favor for th
> From: Stephen Balukoff
> [sbaluk...@bluebox.net<mailto:sbaluk...@bluebox.net>]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 4:49 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS]Removing LBaaS v
of course
welcomed here, in IRC, or anywhere.
Thanks,
doug
On Mar 2, 2016, at 7:06 AM, Samuel Bercovici
<samu...@radware.com<mailto:samu...@radware.com>> wrote:
Hi,
I have just notices the following change:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/286381 which aims to remove LBaaS v1.
Is t
Hi,
I have just notices the following change:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/286381 which aims to remove LBaaS v1.
Is this planned for Mitaka or for Newton?
While LBaaS v2 is becoming the default, I think that we should have the
following before we replace LBaaS v1:
1. Horizon Support
OpenStack is using KVM and Linux as reference implementation, both are GPL.
From: Gal Sagie [mailto:gal.sa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 8:47 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: [openstack-dev] Octavia (LBaaS) license question
Hello All,
> >> sometimes a tenant would like to add a "member" IP that
> > is not part of their
> > > >> tenant networks at all-- this is more than likely an IP
> > address that lives
> >
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:samu...@radware.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 10:14 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
+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:
Another option is to implement health monitor that will fail on P nodes and
will succeed on A nodes.
From: Sergey Kraynev [mailto:skray...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 9:15 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev]
And then they were 6 =D>
-Sam.
-Original Message-
From: Doug Wiegley [mailto:doug...@parksidesoftware.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 1:34 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Proposing Michael Johnson for
Hi,
I think that Evgeny is trying to complete everything bedsides the reference
implementation (API, CLI, Tempest, etc.).
Evgeny will join the Octavia IRC meeting so it could be a good opportunity to
get status and sync activities.
As far as I know 8/31 is feature freeze and not code complete.
Hi,
How do I sign in to this?
I am asked for credentials.
-Sam.
From: Jain, Vivek [mailto:vivekj...@ebay.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 5:54 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Cc: Tonse, Milan
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Horizon support
://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/gslb/2015/ , and we will be having
another meeting next week, same time, same channel.
Thanks,
doug
On May 31, 2015, at 1:27 AM, Samuel Bercovici samu...@radware.com wrote:
Good for me - Tuesday at 1600UTC
-Original Message-
From: Doug Wiegley
=sharing
Regards
Kunal
On Jun 24, 2015, at 12:35 AM, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.commailto:samu...@radware.com wrote:
Hi Kunal,
Did you also include use cases per our last discussion on IRC?
I prefer to start with use cases before we dive into APIs.
Thanks,
-Sam.
-Original
...@citrix.com wrote:
We would like to participate as well.
__ __
Monday-Friday Morning US time works for me..
__ __
Thanks,
Vijay V.
__ __
*From:*Samuel Bercovici [mailto:samu...@radware.com
Hi,
I would also like to participate.
Friday is a non-working day in Israel (same as Saturday for most of you).
So Monday- Thursday works best for me.
-Sam.
From: Doug Wiegley [mailto:doug...@parksidesoftware.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 8:45 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not
We are considering adding network classes “rules” to LBaaS.
In this case, such network classes could als be used to white/black list
traffic.
From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 12:46 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org;
Hi Dani,
Can you please explain further the 3rd use case (Multiple FIPs….)?
Regards,
-Sam.
From: Daniel Comnea [mailto:comnea.d...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 10:09 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [lbaas]
Cloud
- Corvallis); Doug Wiegley; Samuel Bercovici
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas]LBaaSv2 movies / links
Hi Sam,
Thanks for probing. How many seconds/mins you have thought per vendor? By when
do you need this? Will tomorrow work fine?
Thanks,
Vijay V.
Sent from Surface
From
Here is an example: https://filepile.radware.com/files/5ba-e02-c39
From: Samuel Bercovici [mailto:samu...@radware.com]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 7:06 PM
To: Vijay Venkatachalam; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
questions); Evgeny Fedoruk; Adam Harwell; Kyle Mestery; Brandon
Bad link. Here is the correct one:
https://filepile.radware.com/files/2cd-953-809
From: Samuel Bercovici [mailto:samu...@radware.com]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 7:48 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); Vijay
Venkatachalam; Evgeny Fedoruk; Adam Harwell; Kyle
Hi Everyone,
As you may be aware, we have a speaking slot on the Vancouver summit to discuss
LBaaS v2, Kilo and beyond on Monday
https://openstacksummitmay2015vancouver.sched.org/event/3f1e9e24f36238152749afea9c21a264#.VVTwCPmqqko
We are considering to show vendors demos or list/link such
Congratulations Phil!
Thank you for your work so far.
-Sam.
-Original Message-
From: Doug Wiegley [mailto:doug...@parksidesoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 7:55 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas]
Hi Everyone,
Based on the last IRC, I thought we could start a discussion on ML on topics
and then maybe on how we want to discuss durin the summit.
Follows some items we may wish to discuss:
1. LBaaS API additions (assuming TLS and L7 will be there):
a. L3 based traffic routing -
+1
I also prefer option 2 in general with slight inclination to 2-B
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 9:21 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Object statuses
So I am
, allowing too many many to many
relationships feels like a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist, and
introduces a lot of unnecessary complexity.
Stephen
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.commailto:samu...@radware.com wrote:
+1
From: Stephen Balukoff
can get quite large.
I hope this makes sense because my brain is ready to explode.
Thanks,
Brandon
On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 08:52 +, Samuel Bercovici wrote:
Brandon, can you please explain further (1) bellow?
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Logan
[mailto:brandon.lo
, having the same
L7Policy pointing at the same pool is OK, so I personally don't have a
problem allowing sharing of objects within the scope of parent
objects. What do the rest of y'all think?
Stephen
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.com wrote
the same
L7Policy pointing at the same pool is OK, so I personally don't have a
problem allowing sharing of objects within the scope of parent
objects. What do the rest of y'all think?
Stephen
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.com wrote:
Hi
: Implementing 1:1
initially is a good idea to get us rolling. Whether we then implement 1:N or
M:N after that is another question entirely. But in any case, it seems like a
bad idea to try to start with M:N.
Stephen
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.commailto:samu
Hi,
Per discussion I had at OpenStack Summit/Paris with Brandon and Doug, I would
like to remind everyone why we choose to follow a model where pools and
listeners are shared (many to many relationships).
Use Cases:
1. The same application is being exposed via different LB objects.
For
For us in Israel, the earlier the better.
The current meeting time is very good for us, although I understand it too
early for some.
-Sam.
From: Gregory Lebovitz [mailto:gregory.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 1:10 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
Hi,
Validations such as timeout delay should be performed on the API level
before it reaches the driver.
For a configuration tree (lb, listeners, pools, etc.), there should be one
provider.
Having provider defined in multiple places does not make sense.
-San.
From: Vijay Venkatachalam
an interface change. If my
bias is showing that I¹m not a fan of adding this complexity for that, I¹m not
surprised.
Thanks,
doug
On 8/11/14, 7:57 AM, Samuel Bercovici samu...@radware.com wrote:
Hi,
Validations such as ³timeout delay² should be performed on the API
level before it reaches
Stephen,
This will increase the complexity of the code since it will add managing the
cache lifecycle in tandem with the barbican back end and the fact that
containers may be shared by multiple listeners.
At this stage, I think that it serves us all to keep the code at this stage as
small and
Hi,
Please note that if the following will not get approved this week they will not
be done in Juno which is a pity considering their almost final state.
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98640/ - TLS termination
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/99709/ - L7 Content Switching
Please see if there
to treat SANs differently then we're
both breaking the standard and setting a bad precedent.
Stephen
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Carlos Garza
carlos.ga...@rackspace.commailto:carlos.ga...@rackspace.com wrote:
On Jul 15, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.commailto:samu
Hi,
I think that the discussion have asked that obtaining information out of the
x509 via the SAN field will not be defined as mandatory.
For example Radware's backend extracts this information from the x509 in the
(virtual) device itself, specifying dns values different than what exists in
This is also my understanding.
From: Stephen Balukoff [mailto:sbaluk...@bluebox.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 6:30 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Shim vs Agent Refactor
Per the IRC discussion this morning, I
in parallel if we had
extra resources. This shim will have odd corner cases (a second listener on a
vip, e.g.), which will chuck errors.
The ref haproxy driver is highest priority, and thus the v2 agent, as lbaas v2
goes nowhere without it.
Doug
From: Samuel Bercovici samu...@radware.commailto:samu
without the agent, if so
could you explain how?
Thanks,
Dustin Lundquist
On Thursday, July 10, 2014, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.commailto:samu...@radware.com wrote:
New/updated v2 driver could be done without an agent (same as was possible in
v1).
From: Doug Wiegley
[mailto:do
Hi,
For logical objects that were deleted but the backend did not execute on, there
is a PENDING_DELETE state.
So currently there is PENDING_CREATE -- CREATE, PENDING_UPDATE--UPDATE and
PENDING_DELETE--object is removed from the database.
If an error occurred that the object is in ERROR state.
To reiterate the Juno release plan from:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Juno_Release_Schedule
Feature freeze is at: 21st August.
I am listing tasks which we should consider to be done for Juno and who should
handle them.
The following might be considered as critical path to get anything for
container in case its not their it can be used.
On Jun 10, 2014, at 12:47 PM, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.commailto:samu...@radware.com
wrote:
To elaborate on the case where containers get deleted while LBaaS
still
references it.
We think that the following approach will do
Hi,
I think that option 2 should be preferred at this stage.
I also think that certificate should be immutable, if you want a new one,
create a new one and update the listener to use it.
This removes any chance of mistakes, need for versioning etc.
-Sam.
-Original Message-
From: Jorge
: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Barbican Neutron LBaaS
Integration Ideas
+1 for the idea of making certificate immutable.
However, if Barbican allows updating certs/containers then versioning is a must.
Thanks,
Vivek
On 6/8/14, 11:48 PM, Samuel Bercovici samu...@radware.com wrote:
Hi
of old code with old drivers until new code
with new drivers can take its place.
Regards,
-Sam.
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 6:38 PM
To: Samuel Bercovici
Subject: Your suggestions in the BP
Hi Sam!
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Samuel Bercovici
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 10:19 AM
To: 'Brandon Logan'; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
questions); Eugene Nikanorov (enikano...@mirantis.com)
Subject: RE: Your suggestions in the BP
Hi Brandon Eugene and Everyone,
Eugene
+1 to Carlos.
In addition, there should be possible for LBaaS (It might only be just the
LBaaS drivers) to get the information including the private key back so that
the backend can use it.
This means that a trusted communication channel between the driver and
Barbican needs to be established
Before solving everything, I would like first to itemize the things we should
solve/consider.
So pleas focus first on what is it that we need to pay attention for and less
on how to solve such issues.
Follows the list of items:
· Provisioning status/state
o Should it only be on the
This very good news.
Please point to the code review in gerrit.
-Sam.
-Original Message-
From: Eichberger, German [mailto:german.eichber...@hp.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2014 12:54 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev]
Hi Everyone,
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-lbaas-ssl-l7
Feel free to modify and update, please make sure you use your name so we will
know who have added the modification.
Regards,
-Sam.
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
:
Sam,
That deadline seems reasonable to me. I should have time later today or later
this weekend to fill it out.
Thanks,
Stephen
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.commailto:samu...@radware.com wrote:
Hi,
9 people have filled the survey so far.
See attached pdf
Hi Everyone,
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-lbaas-design-session
Feel free to modify and update, please make sure you use your name so we will
know who have added the modification.
Regards,
-Sam.
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
(not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS]LBaaS 1st Session etherpad
Hi,
I see the following statement in the doc.
multiple loadbalancers may referenece the same listener
Does this mean listeners are independent of loadbalancer?
Thanks,
Vijay V.
From: Samuel Bercovici
During our brief meeting today, we tentatively scheduled to meet today at 5:30
PM.
Is this still on?
Where should we meet?
Regards,
-Sam.
On May 12, 2014, at 1:10 PM, Adam Harwell
adam.harw...@rackspace.commailto:adam.harw...@rackspace.com wrote:
Some of us are at a table
Brandon,
Can you please provide statistics on the distribution between the relationships
between load balancer and VIPs in your environment?
-Sam.
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 6:40 PM
To:
It boils down to two aspects:
1. How common is it for tenant to care about affinity or have more than a
single VIP used in a way that adding an additional (mandatory) construct makes
sense for them to handle?
For example if 99% of users do not care about affinity or will only use a
)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [LBaaS][VPN][Barbican] SSL cert
implementation for LBaaS and VPN
On May 7, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.commailto:samu...@radware.com wrote:
Hi John,
If the user already has an SSL certificate that was acquired outside
The survey is not anonymous and I plan to publish it with its raw data we can
then discuss how to interpret.
Each use case has an accompanying text field so that you can add any comments
you wish.
At least I did add comments to most use cases when I responded :-)
-Sam.
-Original
!
Cheers,
--Jorge
From: Samuel Bercovici samu...@radware.commailto:samu...@radware.com
Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2014 2:56 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing
Hi,
I have added to https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/AdvancedServices_and_Neutron a
note recalling two technical challenges that do not exists when LBaaS runs as
a Neutron extension.
-Sam.
From: Susanne Balle [mailto:sleipnir...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 2:45 PM
To: OpenStack
coding in earnest for
Juno.
The Container resource is intended to capture/store the final certificate
details.
Thanks,
John
From: Samuel Bercovici [samu...@radware.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 12:50 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
6 people have completed the survey so far.
From: Samuel Bercovici
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 10:56 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS]User Stories and sruvey
Hi Everyone,
The survey is now live via: http://eSurv.org
this week so we can have enough information to
base decisions next week.
Regards,
-Sam.
From: Samuel Bercovici
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 4:52 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS]User Stories and sruvey
Hi,
I
:59 AM, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.commailto:samu...@radware.com wrote:
Adam, you are correct to show why order matters in policies.
It is a good point to consider AND between rules.
If you really want to OR rules you can use different policies.
Stephen, the need for order contradicts using
facing use
cases and hope to send it to ML ASAP.
Regards,
-Sam.
From: Samuel Bercovici
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 8:40 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Cc: Samuel Bercovici
Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS]User Stories and sruvey
Hi
I think that associating a VIP subnet and list of member subnets is a good
choice.
This is declaratively saying to where is the configuration expecting layer 2
proximity.
The minimal would be the VIP subnet which in essence means the VIP and members
are expected on the same subnet.
Any member
in-line:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.commailto:samu...@radware.com wrote:
Hi,
We have compared the API the is in the blue print to the one described in
Stephen documents.
Follows the differences we have found:
1) L7PolicyVipAssoc is gone, this means
Hi Everyone!
To assist in evaluating the use cases that matter and since we now have ~45 use
cases, I would like to propose to conduct a survey using something like
surveymonkey.
The idea is to have a non-anonymous survey listing the use cases and ask you
identify and vote.
Then we will
Hi Vijay,
I have looked at the Barbican APIs –
https://github.com/cloudkeep/barbican/wiki/Application-Programming-Interface
I was no able to see a “native” API that will accept an SSL certificate
(private key, public key, CSR, etc.) and will store it.
We can either store the whole certificate
have an ordered list of L7 Rules, L7 Rules are processed by this
order and also form an ‘or’ condition.
Regards,
-Avishay, Evgeny and Sam
From: Samuel Bercovici [mailto:samu...@radware.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 1:53 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
for the
summit.
German
-Original Message-
From: Samuel Bercovici [mailto:samu...@radware.com]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 11:44 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] BBG edit of new API proposal
Hi,
I was just
Hi,
As stated, this could either be handled by SSL session ID persistency or by SSL
termination and using cookie based persistency options.
If there is no need to inspect the content hence to terminate the SSL
connection on the load balancer for this sake, than using SSL session ID based
Hi Everyone,
During the last few days I have looked into the different LBaaS API proposals.
I have also looked on the API style used in Neutron. I wanted to see how
Neutron APIs addressed tree like object models.
Follows my observation:
1. Security groups -
let's
move them to gerrit so we can all vote.
Echoing Kyle I would love to see us focusing on getting things ready
for the summit.
German
-Original Message-
From: Samuel Bercovici [mailto:samu...@radware.com]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 11:44 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing
Hi,
I was just working to push the use cases into the new format .rst but I agree
that using google doc would be more intuitive.
Let me know what you prefer to do with the use cases document:
1. leave it at google docs at -
Hi,
The work to design the APIs concerning L7 content switching and SSL termination
has started a bit before the Icehouse summit, it involved the ML in a very
active fashion.
The ML was silent on this because we have completed the discussion and moved to
implementation.
We got to a very
on the API revision proposal, and I'd like to get them recorded and /
or discussed.)
Stephen
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.commailto:samu...@radware.com wrote:
Hi,
I have seen a few addition to
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ewl95yxAMq2fO0Z6Dz6fL
Hi,
I have seen a few addition to
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ewl95yxAMq2fO0Z6Dz6fL-w2FScERQXQR1-mXuSINis/edit?pli=1
I think that it would make sense to keep this document with uses cases that
were discussed in ML.
A use case that I have seen and is missing is related to availability
Hi,
The work on SSL termination has started and is very near completion.
the blue print is in
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/lbaas-ssl-termination and wiki
is in https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/SSL
Do you see anything missing there?
Regards,
-Sam.
considered?
On 7 April 2014 05:27, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.commailto:samu...@radware.com wrote:
Please elaborate, do you mean that the nodes could be on different
zones/cells or something else?
-Original Message-
From: Alun Champion [mailto:p...@achampion.netmailto:p
Hi,
I have looked at
https://docs.google.com/a/mirantis.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ar1FuMFYRhgadDVXZ25NM2NfbGtLTkR0TDFNUWJQUWc#gid=1
and have a few questions:
1. Monitoring Tab:
a. Are there users that use load balancing who do not monitor members?
Can you share the use cases where
scalability.
On 6 April 2014 07:51, Samuel Bercovici samu...@radware.com wrote:
Per the last LBaaS meeting.
1. Please find a list of use cases.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ewl95yxAMq2fO0Z6Dz6fL-w2FScERQXQR1
-mXuSINis/edit?usp=sharing
a) Please review and see if you have
Per the last LBaaS meeting.
1. Please find a list of use cases.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ewl95yxAMq2fO0Z6Dz6fL-w2FScERQXQR1-mXuSINis/edit?usp=sharing
a) Please review and see if you have additional ones for the project-user
b) We can then chose 2-3 use cases to play
+1
-Original Message-
From: Ryan O'Hara [mailto:roh...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 2:37 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements Wiki
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:57:15PM +, Jorge
Discussing some radical concepts...
I also agree that there should be different attribute to reflect the
administrator state, operation state and the provisioning state.
This is already reflected in
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D-1n8nCEFurYzvEBxIRfXfffnImcIPwWSctAG-NXonY/edit?usp=sharing
Hi Eugene,
I am with Evgeny on a business trip so we will not be able to join this time.
I have not seen any progress on the model side. Did I miss anything?
Will look for the meeting summary
Regards,
-Sam.
From: Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com]
Sent:
Hi,
The wiki is updated to reflect the APIs.
Regards,
-Sam.
From: Palanisamy, Anand [mailto:apalanis...@paypal.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 3:26 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: [openstack-dev] [LBaaS] API spec for SSL Support
Hi All,
Please let us
Hi,
As an example you can look at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D-1n8nCEFurYzvEBxIRfXfffnImcIPwWSctAG-NXonY/edit?usp=sharing
Under the “Logical Model + Provisioning Status + Operation Status + Statistics”
there are some details on thoughts on how to implement this.
Regards,
Hi,
In
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D-1n8nCEFurYzvEBxIRfXfffnImcIPwWSctAG-NXonY/edit?usp=sharing
referenced by the Wiki, I have added the section that address the items raised
on the last irc meeting.
Regards,
-Sam.
From: Samuel Bercovici
Sent: Wednesday, February 26
Hi,
The discussion about advanced services and scheduling was primarily around
choosing backbends based on capabilities.
AFAIK, the Nova flavor specify capacity.
So I think that using the term flavor might not match what is intended.
A better word might be capability or group of capabilities.
Rabi,
This is correct.
The API does allow you to do so.
-Sam.
-Original Message-
From: Rabi Mishra [mailto:ramis...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:53 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron]
... -- $VIP-2
Youcef
From: Eugene Nikanorov
[mailto:enikano...@mirantis.commailto:enikano...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:26 PM
To: Samuel Bercovici
Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model
: Eugene Nikanorov
[mailto:enikano...@mirantis.commailto:enikano...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:26 PM
To: Samuel Bercovici
Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion
Hi Sam,
I've looked
Bercovici
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 7:36 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Cc: Samuel Bercovici
Subject: RE: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion
Hi,
I also agree that the model should be pure logical.
I think that the existing model is almost
Hi,
I also agree that the model should be pure logical.
I think that the existing model is almost correct but the pool should be made
pure logical. This means that the vip pool relationships needs also to
become any to any.
Eugene, has rightfully pointed that the current state management
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
