Hi, Barbican is the storage option we're considering, however it seems that there's not much progress with incubation of it.
Another week point of our current state is a lack of secure communication between neutron server and the agent, but that is solvable. Thanks, Eugene. On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Jay Pipes <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 22:01 -0800, Stephen Balukoff wrote: > > > Front-end versus back-end protocols: > > It's actually really common for a HTTPS-enabled front-end to speak > > HTTP to the back-end. The assumption here is that the back-end > > network is "trusted" and therefore we don't need to bother with the > > (considerable) extra CPU overhead of encrypting the back-end traffic. > > To be honest, if you're going to speak HTTPS on the front-end and the > > back-end, then the only possible reason for even terminating SSL on > > the load balancer is to insert the X-Fowarded-For header. In this > > scenario, you lose almost all the benefit of doing SSL offloading at > > all! > > This is exactly correct. > > > If we make a policy decision right here not to allow front-end and > > back-end protocol to mismatch, this will break a lot of topologies. > > Yep. > > Best, > -jay > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
