Our current HP LBaaS implementation only supports one VIP (aka one IP address). So statistics of multiple VIPs will be hard to find. We have been asked for use cases to support IPv4 and IPv6 as Rackspace.
I have heard of some use cases where a load balancer (loosely defined as container) might have an Intranet IP and a public IP... admittedly that can be solved with two load balancers so that might not be too big an issue... German -----Original Message----- From: Samuel Bercovici [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:41 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Multiple VIPs per loadbalancer 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:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 6:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Multiple VIPs per loadbalancer Yes, Rackspace has users that have multiple IPv4 and IPv6 VIPs on a single load balancer. However, I don't think it is a matter of it being needed. It's a matter of having an API that makes sense to a user. Just because the API has multiple VIPs doesn't mean every VIP needs its own port. In fact creating a port is an implementation detail (you know that phrase that everyone throws out to stonewall any discussions?). The user doesn't care how many neutron ports are set up underneath, they only care about the VIPs. Also, the load balancer wouldn't just be a container, the load balancer would have flavor, affinity, and other metadata on it. Plus, a user will expect to get a load balancer back. Since this object can only be described as a load balancer, the name of it shouldn't be up for debate. The API is meant to be a generic language that can be translated into a working load balancer and should be driver agnostic. We believe this is the most generic and flexible API structure. Each driver will be able to translate this into what makes sense for that product. On a side note, if this is too disruptive for the current LBaaS then why couldn't this go into Neutron V3? I thought that was the plan all along anyway with redesigning the API. Thanks, Brandon On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 14:30 +0400, Eugene Nikanorov wrote: > Hi folks, > > > I'm pulling this question out of another discussion: > > > Is there a need to have multiple VIPs (e.g. multiple L2 ports/IP > addresses) per logical loadbalancer? > If so, we need the description of such cases to evaluate them. > > > Thanks, > Eugene. > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
