On 4/19/2016 5:59 PM, Armando M. wrote:


On 18 April 2016 at 15:41, Jay Pipes <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    On 04/18/2016 04:33 PM, Sean Dague wrote:

        When doing bug triage this morning a few bugs popped up:

        - https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1456899 - nova
        absolute-limits
        Security groups count incorrect when using Neutron
        - https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1376316 - nova
        absolute-limits
        floating ip count is incorrect in a neutron based deployment
        - https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1456897 - nova
        absolute-limits
        Floating ip

        The crux of this is the Nova limits API basically returns junk about
        resources it doesn't own. It's been this way forever.

        Last year there was a spec to add proxying to Neutron to the
        Nova API -
        https://review.openstack.org/#/c/206735/ - which died on the vine.


        I think we've moved to a point in time where we need to stop
        thinking
        about nova-net / neutron parity in our API. Neutron is the
        predominate
        stack out there. Where things don't work correctly with Neutron
        from our
        proxy API we should start saying "yes, that's not supported,
        please go
        talk to Neutron" one way or another.

        I feel like in this case it would be dropping the keys which we
        know are
        lies (terrible lies). If using OpenStack client, it can smooth over
        this. In general, people should assume they should be talking to
        neutron
        when getting this kind of data. I feel like in other cases where we
        don't return good neutron data today, we should accept that as
        status
        quo, and not fix it.

        I'd like to propose an alternative spec which is this kind of
        approach,
        to by policy not enhance any of the proxies and instead focus on
        ways in
        which we can aggressively deprecate them. But figured it was worth
        discussion first. Flame away!


    +1 to killing off all API proxying in the Compute API. Notably: the
    Images API proxy should die in a fire of obsolescence.


The proxy APIs in Nova (spanning volume, image and networks) should all
be consistently dealt with. I appreciate that volume != image !=
network, but I hope we can get to a point in the future where all
non-compute APIs are no longer part of the (compute) API, and only those
that do some non-negligible orchestration are left included (e.g.
attach/detach volume|interface)?



    Also note that the "absolute-limits" API I actually believe should
    be in Keystone and that would make its existence in Nova be a proxy
    and therefore it, too, long-term should be thrown off the cliffs of
    deprecation into the sea of redundancy.

    -jay


    __________________________________________________________________________
    OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
    Unsubscribe:
    [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
    <http://[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe>
    http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev




__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


I've always personally considered the network proxy to neutron in the API as getting more of a pass since nova has a network service in it, it doesn't have it's own image or volume service since those were completely split out. But since the adoption rate for neutron has taken off, it does make less sense to put effort into filling the API gaps with new proxy code.

--

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann


__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to