On 18 Jan 2014, at 19:02, Jay Pipes <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-01-18 at 09:06 +0000, Andrew Hutchings wrote:
>>
>> I’m not sure what is public and what isn’t so I won’t name names.
>> They are currently talking to us about the best ways of working with
>> us. Both companies want to use Libra in different and interesting
>> ways. They are not currently deploying it but are both playing with
>> it. It is early days, they both approached us just before the
>> Christmas break.
>
> Did these companies say they had looked at Neutron LBaaS and found its
> design or implementation lacking in some way?
I am not party to the conversations since I handed off my roll before the
conversations really got going. So, I can’t answer unfortunately.
>> We know that working with the wider community with Libra has not been
>> our strong point. It is something I want the team to rectify and they
>> are showing signs of making that happen. People that are interested
>> in Libra are welcome to hang out in the #stackforge-libra IRC channel
>> to talk to us.
>
> Cutting to the chase... have there been any discussions about the
> long-term direction of Libra and Neutron LBaaS. I see little point
> having two OpenStack endpoints that implement the same basic load
> balancing functionality.
>
> Is the main problem in aligning Libra and Neutron the fact that Libra is
> a wholly-separate endpoint/project and Neutron LBaaS is part of the
> Neutron project?
There are at least 3 different ways I know of that the two can be integrated at
various levels based on an investigation into this a year ago. I am not aware
of talks starting yet between the Libra and Neutron teams but I would hope both
sides are keen to make this happen. Both have a lot to give to make software
load balancing a really good thing.
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
