Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Octavia's API becoming spun out LBaaS
Hi Jay, Just so you have some information on the API before the meeting here is the spec for it: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/122338/ I'm sure there is a lot of details that might be missing but it should give you a decent idea. Sorry for the markup/markdown being dumb if you try to build with spinx. Probably easier to just read the raw .rst file. Thanks, Brandon On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 14:05 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote: > Yup, can do! :) > > -jay > > On 10/27/2014 01:55 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: > > Hi Jay, > > > > Let’s add that as an agenda item at our Weekly IRC meeting. Can you make > > this timeslot? > > > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Octavia#Meetings > > > > > > Thanks, > > Doug > > > > > > On 10/27/14, 11:27 AM, "Jay Pipes" wrote: > > > >> Sorry for top-posting, but where can the API working group see the > >> proposed Octavia API specification or documentation? I'd love it if the > >> API WG could be involved in reviewing the public REST API. > >> > >> Best, > >> -jay > >> > >> On 10/27/2014 10:01 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote: > >>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Doug Wiegley > >>> wrote: > Hi Brandon, > > > 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to > > discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the > > harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, > > and more thoroughly after the summit. > > I agree with this sentiment. I’d just like to pull-up to the decision > level, and if we can get some consensus on how we move forward, we can > bring a concrete plan to the summit instead of 40 minutes of Kumbaya. > We > love each other. Check. Things are going to change sometime. Check. > We > might spin-out someday. Check. Now, let’s jump to the interesting > part. > > >>> I think we all know we want to spin these out, as Doug says we just > >>> need to have a plan around how we make that happen. I'm in agreement > >>> with Doug's sentiment above. > >>> > > 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the > > scope > > for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs > > from > > the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that > > There is merit here, but consider the sorts of things that an advanced > services framework should be doing: > > - plugging into neutron ports, with all manner of topologies > - service VM handling > - plugging into nova-network > - service chaining > - applying things like security groups to services > > … this is all stuff that Octavia is talking about implementing itself > in a > basically defensive manner, instead of leveraging other work. And > there > are specific reasons for that. But, maybe we can at least take steps > to > not be incompatible about it. Or maybe there is a hierarchy of > Neutron -> > Services -> LB, where we’re still spun out, but not doing it in a way > that > we have to re-implement the world all the time. It’s at least worth a > conversation or three. > > >>> Doug, can you document this on the etherpad for the "services spinout" > >>> [1]? I've added some brief text at the top on what the objective for > >>> this session is, but documenting more along the lines of what you have > >>> here would be good. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Kyle > >>> > >>> [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-services > >>> > Thanks, > Doug > > > > > On 10/26/14, 6:35 PM, "Brandon Logan" > wrote: > > > Good questions Doug. My answers are as follows: > > > > 1. Yes > > 2. Some time after Kilo (same as I don't know when) > > 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the > > scope > > for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs > > from > > the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that > > repeating itself within an advanced services project. More and more > > "advanced services" will get added in and the scope will become too > > large. There would definitely be benefits to it though, but I think > > we > > would end up being right where we are today. > > 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to > > discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the > > harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, > > and more thoroughly after the summit. > > > > Yes the brunt of the time will not be spent on the API, but since it > > seemed like an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, I figured > > it warranted a discussion. > > > > Thanks, > > Brandon > > > > On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:15 +, Doug Wiegley wrote: > >> Hi all, > >>
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Octavia's API becoming spun out LBaaS
Yup, can do! :) -jay On 10/27/2014 01:55 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: Hi Jay, Let’s add that as an agenda item at our Weekly IRC meeting. Can you make this timeslot? https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Octavia#Meetings Thanks, Doug On 10/27/14, 11:27 AM, "Jay Pipes" wrote: Sorry for top-posting, but where can the API working group see the proposed Octavia API specification or documentation? I'd love it if the API WG could be involved in reviewing the public REST API. Best, -jay On 10/27/2014 10:01 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote: On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: Hi Brandon, 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, and more thoroughly after the summit. I agree with this sentiment. I’d just like to pull-up to the decision level, and if we can get some consensus on how we move forward, we can bring a concrete plan to the summit instead of 40 minutes of Kumbaya. We love each other. Check. Things are going to change sometime. Check. We might spin-out someday. Check. Now, let’s jump to the interesting part. I think we all know we want to spin these out, as Doug says we just need to have a plan around how we make that happen. I'm in agreement with Doug's sentiment above. 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the scope for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that There is merit here, but consider the sorts of things that an advanced services framework should be doing: - plugging into neutron ports, with all manner of topologies - service VM handling - plugging into nova-network - service chaining - applying things like security groups to services … this is all stuff that Octavia is talking about implementing itself in a basically defensive manner, instead of leveraging other work. And there are specific reasons for that. But, maybe we can at least take steps to not be incompatible about it. Or maybe there is a hierarchy of Neutron -> Services -> LB, where we’re still spun out, but not doing it in a way that we have to re-implement the world all the time. It’s at least worth a conversation or three. Doug, can you document this on the etherpad for the "services spinout" [1]? I've added some brief text at the top on what the objective for this session is, but documenting more along the lines of what you have here would be good. Thanks, Kyle [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-services Thanks, Doug On 10/26/14, 6:35 PM, "Brandon Logan" wrote: Good questions Doug. My answers are as follows: 1. Yes 2. Some time after Kilo (same as I don't know when) 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the scope for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that repeating itself within an advanced services project. More and more "advanced services" will get added in and the scope will become too large. There would definitely be benefits to it though, but I think we would end up being right where we are today. 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, and more thoroughly after the summit. Yes the brunt of the time will not be spent on the API, but since it seemed like an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, I figured it warranted a discussion. Thanks, Brandon On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:15 +, Doug Wiegley wrote: Hi all, Before we get into the details of which API goes where, I’d like to see us answer the questions of: 1. Are we spinning out? 2. When? 3. With or without the rest of advanced services? 4. Do we want to wait until we (the royal “we” of “the Neutron team”) have had the Paris summit discussions on vendor split-out and adv. services spinout before we answer those questions? (Yes, that question is leading.) To me, the “where does the API live” is an implementation detail, and not where the time will need to be spent. For the record, my answers are: 1. Yes. 2. I don’t know. 3. I don’t know; this needs some serious discussion. 4. Yes. Thanks, doug On 10/24/14, 3:47 PM, "Brandon Logan" wrote: With the recent talk about advanced services spinning out of Neutron, and the fact most of the LBaaS community has wanted LBaaS to spin out of Neutron, I wanted to bring up a possibility and gauge interest and opinion on this possibility. Octavia is going to (and has) an API. The current thinking is that an Octavia driver will be created in Neutron LBaaS that will make a requests to the Octavia API. When LBaaS spins out of Neutron, it will need a standalone API. Octavia's API seems to b
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Octavia's API becoming spun out LBaaS
Hi Jay, Let’s add that as an agenda item at our Weekly IRC meeting. Can you make this timeslot? https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Octavia#Meetings Thanks, Doug On 10/27/14, 11:27 AM, "Jay Pipes" wrote: >Sorry for top-posting, but where can the API working group see the >proposed Octavia API specification or documentation? I'd love it if the >API WG could be involved in reviewing the public REST API. > >Best, >-jay > >On 10/27/2014 10:01 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Doug Wiegley >>wrote: >>> Hi Brandon, >>> 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, and more thoroughly after the summit. >>> >>> I agree with this sentiment. I’d just like to pull-up to the decision >>> level, and if we can get some consensus on how we move forward, we can >>> bring a concrete plan to the summit instead of 40 minutes of Kumbaya. >>>We >>> love each other. Check. Things are going to change sometime. Check. >>> We >>> might spin-out someday. Check. Now, let’s jump to the interesting >>>part. >>> >> I think we all know we want to spin these out, as Doug says we just >> need to have a plan around how we make that happen. I'm in agreement >> with Doug's sentiment above. >> 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the scope for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that >>> >>> There is merit here, but consider the sorts of things that an advanced >>> services framework should be doing: >>> >>> - plugging into neutron ports, with all manner of topologies >>> - service VM handling >>> - plugging into nova-network >>> - service chaining >>> - applying things like security groups to services >>> >>> … this is all stuff that Octavia is talking about implementing itself >>>in a >>> basically defensive manner, instead of leveraging other work. And >>>there >>> are specific reasons for that. But, maybe we can at least take steps >>>to >>> not be incompatible about it. Or maybe there is a hierarchy of >>>Neutron -> >>> Services -> LB, where we’re still spun out, but not doing it in a way >>>that >>> we have to re-implement the world all the time. It’s at least worth a >>> conversation or three. >>> >> Doug, can you document this on the etherpad for the "services spinout" >> [1]? I've added some brief text at the top on what the objective for >> this session is, but documenting more along the lines of what you have >> here would be good. >> >> Thanks, >> Kyle >> >> [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-services >> >>> Thanks, >>> Doug >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/26/14, 6:35 PM, "Brandon Logan" >>>wrote: >>> Good questions Doug. My answers are as follows: 1. Yes 2. Some time after Kilo (same as I don't know when) 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the scope for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that repeating itself within an advanced services project. More and more "advanced services" will get added in and the scope will become too large. There would definitely be benefits to it though, but I think we would end up being right where we are today. 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, and more thoroughly after the summit. Yes the brunt of the time will not be spent on the API, but since it seemed like an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, I figured it warranted a discussion. Thanks, Brandon On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:15 +, Doug Wiegley wrote: > Hi all, > > Before we get into the details of which API goes where, I’d like to >see > us > answer the questions of: > > 1. Are we spinning out? > 2. When? > 3. With or without the rest of advanced services? > 4. Do we want to wait until we (the royal “we” of “the Neutron team”) > have > had the Paris summit discussions on vendor split-out and adv. >services > spinout before we answer those questions? (Yes, that question is > leading.) > > To me, the “where does the API live” is an implementation detail, and > not > where the time will need to be spent. > > For the record, my answers are: > > 1. Yes. > 2. I don’t know. > 3. I don’t know; this needs some serious discussion. > 4. Yes. > > Thanks, > doug > > On 10/24/14, 3:47 PM, "Brandon Logan" > wrote: > >>
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Octavia's API becoming spun out LBaaS
Sorry for top-posting, but where can the API working group see the proposed Octavia API specification or documentation? I'd love it if the API WG could be involved in reviewing the public REST API. Best, -jay On 10/27/2014 10:01 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote: On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: Hi Brandon, 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, and more thoroughly after the summit. I agree with this sentiment. I’d just like to pull-up to the decision level, and if we can get some consensus on how we move forward, we can bring a concrete plan to the summit instead of 40 minutes of Kumbaya. We love each other. Check. Things are going to change sometime. Check. We might spin-out someday. Check. Now, let’s jump to the interesting part. I think we all know we want to spin these out, as Doug says we just need to have a plan around how we make that happen. I'm in agreement with Doug's sentiment above. 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the scope for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that There is merit here, but consider the sorts of things that an advanced services framework should be doing: - plugging into neutron ports, with all manner of topologies - service VM handling - plugging into nova-network - service chaining - applying things like security groups to services … this is all stuff that Octavia is talking about implementing itself in a basically defensive manner, instead of leveraging other work. And there are specific reasons for that. But, maybe we can at least take steps to not be incompatible about it. Or maybe there is a hierarchy of Neutron -> Services -> LB, where we’re still spun out, but not doing it in a way that we have to re-implement the world all the time. It’s at least worth a conversation or three. Doug, can you document this on the etherpad for the "services spinout" [1]? I've added some brief text at the top on what the objective for this session is, but documenting more along the lines of what you have here would be good. Thanks, Kyle [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-services Thanks, Doug On 10/26/14, 6:35 PM, "Brandon Logan" wrote: Good questions Doug. My answers are as follows: 1. Yes 2. Some time after Kilo (same as I don't know when) 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the scope for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that repeating itself within an advanced services project. More and more "advanced services" will get added in and the scope will become too large. There would definitely be benefits to it though, but I think we would end up being right where we are today. 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, and more thoroughly after the summit. Yes the brunt of the time will not be spent on the API, but since it seemed like an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, I figured it warranted a discussion. Thanks, Brandon On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:15 +, Doug Wiegley wrote: Hi all, Before we get into the details of which API goes where, I’d like to see us answer the questions of: 1. Are we spinning out? 2. When? 3. With or without the rest of advanced services? 4. Do we want to wait until we (the royal “we” of “the Neutron team”) have had the Paris summit discussions on vendor split-out and adv. services spinout before we answer those questions? (Yes, that question is leading.) To me, the “where does the API live” is an implementation detail, and not where the time will need to be spent. For the record, my answers are: 1. Yes. 2. I don’t know. 3. I don’t know; this needs some serious discussion. 4. Yes. Thanks, doug On 10/24/14, 3:47 PM, "Brandon Logan" wrote: With the recent talk about advanced services spinning out of Neutron, and the fact most of the LBaaS community has wanted LBaaS to spin out of Neutron, I wanted to bring up a possibility and gauge interest and opinion on this possibility. Octavia is going to (and has) an API. The current thinking is that an Octavia driver will be created in Neutron LBaaS that will make a requests to the Octavia API. When LBaaS spins out of Neutron, it will need a standalone API. Octavia's API seems to be a good solution to this. It will support vendor drivers much like the current Neutron LBaaS does. It has a similar API as Neutron LBaaS v2, but its not an exact duplicate. Octavia will be growing more mature in stackforge at a higher velocity than an Openstack projec
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Octavia's API becoming spun out LBaaS
Got it. So we will be discussing this in the 2PM meeting today. Correct? Regards, Mandeep On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Mandeep Dhami > wrote: > > Hi Kyle: > > > > Are you scheduling an on-demand meeting, or are you proposing that the > > agenda for next neutron meeting include this as an on-demand item? > > > Per my email to the list recently [1], the weekly rotating Neutron > meeting is now an on-demand agenda, rather than a rollup of sub-team > status. I'm saying this particular topic (advanced services spinout) > will be discussed in Paris, and it's worth adding it to the weekly > Neutron meeting [2] agenda in the on-demand section. This is a pretty > large topic with many interested parties, thus the attention in the > broader neutron meeting. > > Thanks, > Kyle > > [1] > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-October/048328.html > [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/Meetings > > > Regards, > > Mandeep > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Kyle Mestery > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Sumit Naiksatam > >> wrote: > >> > Several people have been requesting that we resume the Advanced > >> > Services' meetings [1] to discuss some of the topics being mentioned > >> > in this thread. Perhaps it might help people to have a focussed > >> > discussion on the topic of "advanced services' spin-out" prior to the > >> > design summit session [2] in Paris. So I propose that we resume our > >> > weekly IRC meetings starting this Wednesday (Oct 29th), 17.30 UTC on > >> > #openstack-meeting-3. > >> > > >> Given how important this is to Neutron in general, I would prefer NOT > >> to see this discussed in the Advanced Services meeting, but rather in > >> the regular Neutron meeting. These are the types of things which need > >> broader oversight and involvement. Lets please discuss this in the > >> regular Neutron meeting, which is an on-demand meeting format, rather > >> than in a sub-team meeting. > >> > >> > Thanks, > >> > ~Sumit. > >> > > >> > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/AdvancedServices > >> > [2] > >> > > http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/event/8a0b7c1d64883c08286e4446e163f1a6#.VE3Ukot4r4y > >> > > >> > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Sridar Kandaswamy (skandasw) > >> > wrote: > >> >> Hi Doug: > >> >> > >> >> On 10/26/14, 6:01 PM, "Doug Wiegley" wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>Hi Brandon, > >> >>> > >> 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to > >> discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see > >> the > >> harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the > >> summit, > >> and more thoroughly after the summit. > >> >>> > >> >>>I agree with this sentiment. I¹d just like to pull-up to the > decision > >> >>>level, and if we can get some consensus on how we move forward, we > can > >> >>>bring a concrete plan to the summit instead of 40 minutes of Kumbaya. > >> >>> We > >> >>>love each other. Check. Things are going to change sometime. > Check. > >> >>> We > >> >>>might spin-out someday. Check. Now, let¹s jump to the interesting > >> >>> part. > >> >>> > >> 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the > >> scope > >> for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs > >> from > >> the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see > that > >> >>> > >> >>>There is merit here, but consider the sorts of things that an > advanced > >> >>>services framework should be doing: > >> >>> > >> >>>- plugging into neutron ports, with all manner of topologies > >> >>>- service VM handling > >> >>>- plugging into nova-network > >> >>>- service chaining > >> >>>- applying things like security groups to services > >> >>> > >> >>>Š this is all stuff that Octavia is talking about implementing itself > >> >>> in a > >> >>>basically defensive manner, instead of leveraging other work. And > >> >>> there > >> >>>are specific reasons for that. But, maybe we can at least take steps > >> >>> to > >> >>>not be incompatible about it. Or maybe there is a hierarchy of > Neutron > >> >>> -> > >> >>>Services -> LB, where we¹re still spun out, but not doing it in a way > >> >>> that > >> >>>we have to re-implement the world all the time. It¹s at least worth > a > >> >>>conversation or three. > >> >> > >> >> In total agreement and I have heard these sentiments in multiple > >> >> conversations across multiple players. > >> >> It would be really fruitful to have a constructive conversation on > this > >> >> across the services, and there are > >> >> enough similar issues to make this worthwhile. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks > >> >> > >> >> Sridar > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >>>Thanks, > >> >>>Doug > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>On 10/26/14, 6:35 PM, "Brandon Logan" > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> > >> Good questions Doug. My answers are as follows: >
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Octavia's API becoming spun out LBaaS
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Mandeep Dhami wrote: > Hi Kyle: > > Are you scheduling an on-demand meeting, or are you proposing that the > agenda for next neutron meeting include this as an on-demand item? > Per my email to the list recently [1], the weekly rotating Neutron meeting is now an on-demand agenda, rather than a rollup of sub-team status. I'm saying this particular topic (advanced services spinout) will be discussed in Paris, and it's worth adding it to the weekly Neutron meeting [2] agenda in the on-demand section. This is a pretty large topic with many interested parties, thus the attention in the broader neutron meeting. Thanks, Kyle [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-October/048328.html [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/Meetings > Regards, > Mandeep > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Sumit Naiksatam >> wrote: >> > Several people have been requesting that we resume the Advanced >> > Services' meetings [1] to discuss some of the topics being mentioned >> > in this thread. Perhaps it might help people to have a focussed >> > discussion on the topic of "advanced services' spin-out" prior to the >> > design summit session [2] in Paris. So I propose that we resume our >> > weekly IRC meetings starting this Wednesday (Oct 29th), 17.30 UTC on >> > #openstack-meeting-3. >> > >> Given how important this is to Neutron in general, I would prefer NOT >> to see this discussed in the Advanced Services meeting, but rather in >> the regular Neutron meeting. These are the types of things which need >> broader oversight and involvement. Lets please discuss this in the >> regular Neutron meeting, which is an on-demand meeting format, rather >> than in a sub-team meeting. >> >> > Thanks, >> > ~Sumit. >> > >> > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/AdvancedServices >> > [2] >> > http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/event/8a0b7c1d64883c08286e4446e163f1a6#.VE3Ukot4r4y >> > >> > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Sridar Kandaswamy (skandasw) >> > wrote: >> >> Hi Doug: >> >> >> >> On 10/26/14, 6:01 PM, "Doug Wiegley" wrote: >> >> >> >>>Hi Brandon, >> >>> >> 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to >> discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see >> the >> harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the >> summit, >> and more thoroughly after the summit. >> >>> >> >>>I agree with this sentiment. I¹d just like to pull-up to the decision >> >>>level, and if we can get some consensus on how we move forward, we can >> >>>bring a concrete plan to the summit instead of 40 minutes of Kumbaya. >> >>> We >> >>>love each other. Check. Things are going to change sometime. Check. >> >>> We >> >>>might spin-out someday. Check. Now, let¹s jump to the interesting >> >>> part. >> >>> >> 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the >> scope >> for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs >> from >> the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that >> >>> >> >>>There is merit here, but consider the sorts of things that an advanced >> >>>services framework should be doing: >> >>> >> >>>- plugging into neutron ports, with all manner of topologies >> >>>- service VM handling >> >>>- plugging into nova-network >> >>>- service chaining >> >>>- applying things like security groups to services >> >>> >> >>>Š this is all stuff that Octavia is talking about implementing itself >> >>> in a >> >>>basically defensive manner, instead of leveraging other work. And >> >>> there >> >>>are specific reasons for that. But, maybe we can at least take steps >> >>> to >> >>>not be incompatible about it. Or maybe there is a hierarchy of Neutron >> >>> -> >> >>>Services -> LB, where we¹re still spun out, but not doing it in a way >> >>> that >> >>>we have to re-implement the world all the time. It¹s at least worth a >> >>>conversation or three. >> >> >> >> In total agreement and I have heard these sentiments in multiple >> >> conversations across multiple players. >> >> It would be really fruitful to have a constructive conversation on this >> >> across the services, and there are >> >> enough similar issues to make this worthwhile. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> Sridar >> >> >> >>> >> >>>Thanks, >> >>>Doug >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>On 10/26/14, 6:35 PM, "Brandon Logan" >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> Good questions Doug. My answers are as follows: >> >> 1. Yes >> 2. Some time after Kilo (same as I don't know when) >> 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the >> scope >> for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs >> from >> the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that >> repeating itself within an advanced services project. More and more >> "
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Octavia's API becoming spun out LBaaS
Hi Kyle: Are you scheduling an on-demand meeting, or are you proposing that the agenda for next neutron meeting include this as an on-demand item? Regards, Mandeep On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Sumit Naiksatam > wrote: > > Several people have been requesting that we resume the Advanced > > Services' meetings [1] to discuss some of the topics being mentioned > > in this thread. Perhaps it might help people to have a focussed > > discussion on the topic of "advanced services' spin-out" prior to the > > design summit session [2] in Paris. So I propose that we resume our > > weekly IRC meetings starting this Wednesday (Oct 29th), 17.30 UTC on > > #openstack-meeting-3. > > > Given how important this is to Neutron in general, I would prefer NOT > to see this discussed in the Advanced Services meeting, but rather in > the regular Neutron meeting. These are the types of things which need > broader oversight and involvement. Lets please discuss this in the > regular Neutron meeting, which is an on-demand meeting format, rather > than in a sub-team meeting. > > > Thanks, > > ~Sumit. > > > > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/AdvancedServices > > [2] > http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/event/8a0b7c1d64883c08286e4446e163f1a6#.VE3Ukot4r4y > > > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Sridar Kandaswamy (skandasw) > > wrote: > >> Hi Doug: > >> > >> On 10/26/14, 6:01 PM, "Doug Wiegley" wrote: > >> > >>>Hi Brandon, > >>> > 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to > discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the > harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, > and more thoroughly after the summit. > >>> > >>>I agree with this sentiment. I¹d just like to pull-up to the decision > >>>level, and if we can get some consensus on how we move forward, we can > >>>bring a concrete plan to the summit instead of 40 minutes of Kumbaya. > We > >>>love each other. Check. Things are going to change sometime. Check. > We > >>>might spin-out someday. Check. Now, let¹s jump to the interesting > part. > >>> > 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the > scope > for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs > from > the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that > >>> > >>>There is merit here, but consider the sorts of things that an advanced > >>>services framework should be doing: > >>> > >>>- plugging into neutron ports, with all manner of topologies > >>>- service VM handling > >>>- plugging into nova-network > >>>- service chaining > >>>- applying things like security groups to services > >>> > >>>Š this is all stuff that Octavia is talking about implementing itself > in a > >>>basically defensive manner, instead of leveraging other work. And there > >>>are specific reasons for that. But, maybe we can at least take steps to > >>>not be incompatible about it. Or maybe there is a hierarchy of Neutron > -> > >>>Services -> LB, where we¹re still spun out, but not doing it in a way > that > >>>we have to re-implement the world all the time. It¹s at least worth a > >>>conversation or three. > >> > >> In total agreement and I have heard these sentiments in multiple > >> conversations across multiple players. > >> It would be really fruitful to have a constructive conversation on this > >> across the services, and there are > >> enough similar issues to make this worthwhile. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Sridar > >> > >>> > >>>Thanks, > >>>Doug > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>On 10/26/14, 6:35 PM, "Brandon Logan" > wrote: > >>> > Good questions Doug. My answers are as follows: > > 1. Yes > 2. Some time after Kilo (same as I don't know when) > 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the > scope > for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from > the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that > repeating itself within an advanced services project. More and more > "advanced services" will get added in and the scope will become too > large. There would definitely be benefits to it though, but I think we > would end up being right where we are today. > 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to > discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the > harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, > and more thoroughly after the summit. > > Yes the brunt of the time will not be spent on the API, but since it > seemed like an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, I figured > it warranted a discussion. > > Thanks, > Brandon > > On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:15 +, Doug Wiegley wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Before we get into the details of which API goes w
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Octavia's API becoming spun out LBaaS
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: > Hi Brandon, > >> 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to >> discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the >> harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, >> and more thoroughly after the summit. > > I agree with this sentiment. I’d just like to pull-up to the decision > level, and if we can get some consensus on how we move forward, we can > bring a concrete plan to the summit instead of 40 minutes of Kumbaya. We > love each other. Check. Things are going to change sometime. Check. We > might spin-out someday. Check. Now, let’s jump to the interesting part. > I think we all know we want to spin these out, as Doug says we just need to have a plan around how we make that happen. I'm in agreement with Doug's sentiment above. >> 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the scope >> for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from >> the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that > > There is merit here, but consider the sorts of things that an advanced > services framework should be doing: > > - plugging into neutron ports, with all manner of topologies > - service VM handling > - plugging into nova-network > - service chaining > - applying things like security groups to services > > … this is all stuff that Octavia is talking about implementing itself in a > basically defensive manner, instead of leveraging other work. And there > are specific reasons for that. But, maybe we can at least take steps to > not be incompatible about it. Or maybe there is a hierarchy of Neutron -> > Services -> LB, where we’re still spun out, but not doing it in a way that > we have to re-implement the world all the time. It’s at least worth a > conversation or three. > Doug, can you document this on the etherpad for the "services spinout" [1]? I've added some brief text at the top on what the objective for this session is, but documenting more along the lines of what you have here would be good. Thanks, Kyle [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-services > Thanks, > Doug > > > > > On 10/26/14, 6:35 PM, "Brandon Logan" wrote: > >>Good questions Doug. My answers are as follows: >> >>1. Yes >>2. Some time after Kilo (same as I don't know when) >>3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the scope >>for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from >>the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that >>repeating itself within an advanced services project. More and more >>"advanced services" will get added in and the scope will become too >>large. There would definitely be benefits to it though, but I think we >>would end up being right where we are today. >>4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to >>discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the >>harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, >>and more thoroughly after the summit. >> >>Yes the brunt of the time will not be spent on the API, but since it >>seemed like an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, I figured >>it warranted a discussion. >> >>Thanks, >>Brandon >> >>On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:15 +, Doug Wiegley wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Before we get into the details of which API goes where, I’d like to see >>>us >>> answer the questions of: >>> >>> 1. Are we spinning out? >>> 2. When? >>> 3. With or without the rest of advanced services? >>> 4. Do we want to wait until we (the royal “we” of “the Neutron team”) >>>have >>> had the Paris summit discussions on vendor split-out and adv. services >>> spinout before we answer those questions? (Yes, that question is >>>leading.) >>> >>> To me, the “where does the API live” is an implementation detail, and >>>not >>> where the time will need to be spent. >>> >>> For the record, my answers are: >>> >>> 1. Yes. >>> 2. I don’t know. >>> 3. I don’t know; this needs some serious discussion. >>> 4. Yes. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> doug >>> >>> On 10/24/14, 3:47 PM, "Brandon Logan" >>>wrote: >>> >>> >With the recent talk about advanced services spinning out of Neutron, >>> >and the fact most of the LBaaS community has wanted LBaaS to spin out >>>of >>> >Neutron, I wanted to bring up a possibility and gauge interest and >>> >opinion on this possibility. >>> > >>> >Octavia is going to (and has) an API. The current thinking is that an >>> >Octavia driver will be created in Neutron LBaaS that will make a >>> >requests to the Octavia API. When LBaaS spins out of Neutron, it will >>> >need a standalone API. Octavia's API seems to be a good solution to >>> >this. It will support vendor drivers much like the current Neutron >>> >LBaaS does. It has a similar API as Neutron LBaaS v2, but its not an >>> >exact duplicate. Octavia will be growing more mature in stackforge at >>>a >>> >h
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Octavia's API becoming spun out LBaaS
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Sumit Naiksatam wrote: > Several people have been requesting that we resume the Advanced > Services' meetings [1] to discuss some of the topics being mentioned > in this thread. Perhaps it might help people to have a focussed > discussion on the topic of "advanced services' spin-out" prior to the > design summit session [2] in Paris. So I propose that we resume our > weekly IRC meetings starting this Wednesday (Oct 29th), 17.30 UTC on > #openstack-meeting-3. > Given how important this is to Neutron in general, I would prefer NOT to see this discussed in the Advanced Services meeting, but rather in the regular Neutron meeting. These are the types of things which need broader oversight and involvement. Lets please discuss this in the regular Neutron meeting, which is an on-demand meeting format, rather than in a sub-team meeting. > Thanks, > ~Sumit. > > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/AdvancedServices > [2] > http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/event/8a0b7c1d64883c08286e4446e163f1a6#.VE3Ukot4r4y > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Sridar Kandaswamy (skandasw) > wrote: >> Hi Doug: >> >> On 10/26/14, 6:01 PM, "Doug Wiegley" wrote: >> >>>Hi Brandon, >>> 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, and more thoroughly after the summit. >>> >>>I agree with this sentiment. I¹d just like to pull-up to the decision >>>level, and if we can get some consensus on how we move forward, we can >>>bring a concrete plan to the summit instead of 40 minutes of Kumbaya. We >>>love each other. Check. Things are going to change sometime. Check. We >>>might spin-out someday. Check. Now, let¹s jump to the interesting part. >>> 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the scope for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that >>> >>>There is merit here, but consider the sorts of things that an advanced >>>services framework should be doing: >>> >>>- plugging into neutron ports, with all manner of topologies >>>- service VM handling >>>- plugging into nova-network >>>- service chaining >>>- applying things like security groups to services >>> >>>Š this is all stuff that Octavia is talking about implementing itself in a >>>basically defensive manner, instead of leveraging other work. And there >>>are specific reasons for that. But, maybe we can at least take steps to >>>not be incompatible about it. Or maybe there is a hierarchy of Neutron -> >>>Services -> LB, where we¹re still spun out, but not doing it in a way that >>>we have to re-implement the world all the time. It¹s at least worth a >>>conversation or three. >> >> In total agreement and I have heard these sentiments in multiple >> conversations across multiple players. >> It would be really fruitful to have a constructive conversation on this >> across the services, and there are >> enough similar issues to make this worthwhile. >> >> Thanks >> >> Sridar >> >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Doug >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On 10/26/14, 6:35 PM, "Brandon Logan" wrote: >>> Good questions Doug. My answers are as follows: 1. Yes 2. Some time after Kilo (same as I don't know when) 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the scope for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that repeating itself within an advanced services project. More and more "advanced services" will get added in and the scope will become too large. There would definitely be benefits to it though, but I think we would end up being right where we are today. 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, and more thoroughly after the summit. Yes the brunt of the time will not be spent on the API, but since it seemed like an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, I figured it warranted a discussion. Thanks, Brandon On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:15 +, Doug Wiegley wrote: > Hi all, > > Before we get into the details of which API goes where, I¹d like to see >us > answer the questions of: > > 1. Are we spinning out? > 2. When? > 3. With or without the rest of advanced services? > 4. Do we want to wait until we (the royal ³we² of ³the Neutron team²) >have > had the Paris summit discussions on vendor split-out and adv. services > spinout before we answer those questions? (Yes, that question is >leading.) > > To me, the ³where does the
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Octavia's API becoming spun out LBaaS
Several people have been requesting that we resume the Advanced Services' meetings [1] to discuss some of the topics being mentioned in this thread. Perhaps it might help people to have a focussed discussion on the topic of "advanced services' spin-out" prior to the design summit session [2] in Paris. So I propose that we resume our weekly IRC meetings starting this Wednesday (Oct 29th), 17.30 UTC on #openstack-meeting-3. Thanks, ~Sumit. [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/AdvancedServices [2] http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/event/8a0b7c1d64883c08286e4446e163f1a6#.VE3Ukot4r4y On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Sridar Kandaswamy (skandasw) wrote: > Hi Doug: > > On 10/26/14, 6:01 PM, "Doug Wiegley" wrote: > >>Hi Brandon, >> >>> 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to >>> discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the >>> harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, >>> and more thoroughly after the summit. >> >>I agree with this sentiment. I¹d just like to pull-up to the decision >>level, and if we can get some consensus on how we move forward, we can >>bring a concrete plan to the summit instead of 40 minutes of Kumbaya. We >>love each other. Check. Things are going to change sometime. Check. We >>might spin-out someday. Check. Now, let¹s jump to the interesting part. >> >>> 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the scope >>> for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from >>> the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that >> >>There is merit here, but consider the sorts of things that an advanced >>services framework should be doing: >> >>- plugging into neutron ports, with all manner of topologies >>- service VM handling >>- plugging into nova-network >>- service chaining >>- applying things like security groups to services >> >>Š this is all stuff that Octavia is talking about implementing itself in a >>basically defensive manner, instead of leveraging other work. And there >>are specific reasons for that. But, maybe we can at least take steps to >>not be incompatible about it. Or maybe there is a hierarchy of Neutron -> >>Services -> LB, where we¹re still spun out, but not doing it in a way that >>we have to re-implement the world all the time. It¹s at least worth a >>conversation or three. > > In total agreement and I have heard these sentiments in multiple > conversations across multiple players. > It would be really fruitful to have a constructive conversation on this > across the services, and there are > enough similar issues to make this worthwhile. > > Thanks > > Sridar > >> >>Thanks, >>Doug >> >> >> >> >>On 10/26/14, 6:35 PM, "Brandon Logan" wrote: >> >>>Good questions Doug. My answers are as follows: >>> >>>1. Yes >>>2. Some time after Kilo (same as I don't know when) >>>3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the scope >>>for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from >>>the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that >>>repeating itself within an advanced services project. More and more >>>"advanced services" will get added in and the scope will become too >>>large. There would definitely be benefits to it though, but I think we >>>would end up being right where we are today. >>>4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to >>>discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the >>>harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, >>>and more thoroughly after the summit. >>> >>>Yes the brunt of the time will not be spent on the API, but since it >>>seemed like an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, I figured >>>it warranted a discussion. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Brandon >>> >>>On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:15 +, Doug Wiegley wrote: Hi all, Before we get into the details of which API goes where, I¹d like to see us answer the questions of: 1. Are we spinning out? 2. When? 3. With or without the rest of advanced services? 4. Do we want to wait until we (the royal ³we² of ³the Neutron team²) have had the Paris summit discussions on vendor split-out and adv. services spinout before we answer those questions? (Yes, that question is leading.) To me, the ³where does the API live² is an implementation detail, and not where the time will need to be spent. For the record, my answers are: 1. Yes. 2. I don¹t know. 3. I don¹t know; this needs some serious discussion. 4. Yes. Thanks, doug On 10/24/14, 3:47 PM, "Brandon Logan" wrote: >With the recent talk about advanced services spinning out of Neutron, >and the fact most of the LBaaS community has wanted LBaaS to spin out of >Neutron, I wanted to bring up a possibility and gauge int
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Octavia's API becoming spun out LBaaS
Hi Doug: On 10/26/14, 6:01 PM, "Doug Wiegley" wrote: >Hi Brandon, > >> 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to >> discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the >> harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, >> and more thoroughly after the summit. > >I agree with this sentiment. I¹d just like to pull-up to the decision >level, and if we can get some consensus on how we move forward, we can >bring a concrete plan to the summit instead of 40 minutes of Kumbaya. We >love each other. Check. Things are going to change sometime. Check. We >might spin-out someday. Check. Now, let¹s jump to the interesting part. > >> 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the scope >> for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from >> the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that > >There is merit here, but consider the sorts of things that an advanced >services framework should be doing: > >- plugging into neutron ports, with all manner of topologies >- service VM handling >- plugging into nova-network >- service chaining >- applying things like security groups to services > >Š this is all stuff that Octavia is talking about implementing itself in a >basically defensive manner, instead of leveraging other work. And there >are specific reasons for that. But, maybe we can at least take steps to >not be incompatible about it. Or maybe there is a hierarchy of Neutron -> >Services -> LB, where we¹re still spun out, but not doing it in a way that >we have to re-implement the world all the time. It¹s at least worth a >conversation or three. In total agreement and I have heard these sentiments in multiple conversations across multiple players. It would be really fruitful to have a constructive conversation on this across the services, and there are enough similar issues to make this worthwhile. Thanks Sridar > >Thanks, >Doug > > > > >On 10/26/14, 6:35 PM, "Brandon Logan" wrote: > >>Good questions Doug. My answers are as follows: >> >>1. Yes >>2. Some time after Kilo (same as I don't know when) >>3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the scope >>for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from >>the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that >>repeating itself within an advanced services project. More and more >>"advanced services" will get added in and the scope will become too >>large. There would definitely be benefits to it though, but I think we >>would end up being right where we are today. >>4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to >>discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the >>harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, >>and more thoroughly after the summit. >> >>Yes the brunt of the time will not be spent on the API, but since it >>seemed like an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, I figured >>it warranted a discussion. >> >>Thanks, >>Brandon >> >>On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:15 +, Doug Wiegley wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Before we get into the details of which API goes where, I¹d like to see >>>us >>> answer the questions of: >>> >>> 1. Are we spinning out? >>> 2. When? >>> 3. With or without the rest of advanced services? >>> 4. Do we want to wait until we (the royal ³we² of ³the Neutron team²) >>>have >>> had the Paris summit discussions on vendor split-out and adv. services >>> spinout before we answer those questions? (Yes, that question is >>>leading.) >>> >>> To me, the ³where does the API live² is an implementation detail, and >>>not >>> where the time will need to be spent. >>> >>> For the record, my answers are: >>> >>> 1. Yes. >>> 2. I don¹t know. >>> 3. I don¹t know; this needs some serious discussion. >>> 4. Yes. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> doug >>> >>> On 10/24/14, 3:47 PM, "Brandon Logan" >>>wrote: >>> >>> >With the recent talk about advanced services spinning out of Neutron, >>> >and the fact most of the LBaaS community has wanted LBaaS to spin out >>>of >>> >Neutron, I wanted to bring up a possibility and gauge interest and >>> >opinion on this possibility. >>> > >>> >Octavia is going to (and has) an API. The current thinking is that an >>> >Octavia driver will be created in Neutron LBaaS that will make a >>> >requests to the Octavia API. When LBaaS spins out of Neutron, it will >>> >need a standalone API. Octavia's API seems to be a good solution to >>> >this. It will support vendor drivers much like the current Neutron >>> >LBaaS does. It has a similar API as Neutron LBaaS v2, but its not an >>> >exact duplicate. Octavia will be growing more mature in stackforge at >>>a >>> >higher velocity than an Openstack project, so I expect by the time >>>Kilo >>> >comes around it's API will be very mature. >>> > >>> >Octavia's API doesn't have to be called Octavia either. It can be >>> >
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Octavia's API becoming spun out LBaaS
Hi Brandon, > 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to > discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the > harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, > and more thoroughly after the summit. I agree with this sentiment. I’d just like to pull-up to the decision level, and if we can get some consensus on how we move forward, we can bring a concrete plan to the summit instead of 40 minutes of Kumbaya. We love each other. Check. Things are going to change sometime. Check. We might spin-out someday. Check. Now, let’s jump to the interesting part. > 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the scope > for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from > the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that There is merit here, but consider the sorts of things that an advanced services framework should be doing: - plugging into neutron ports, with all manner of topologies - service VM handling - plugging into nova-network - service chaining - applying things like security groups to services … this is all stuff that Octavia is talking about implementing itself in a basically defensive manner, instead of leveraging other work. And there are specific reasons for that. But, maybe we can at least take steps to not be incompatible about it. Or maybe there is a hierarchy of Neutron -> Services -> LB, where we’re still spun out, but not doing it in a way that we have to re-implement the world all the time. It’s at least worth a conversation or three. Thanks, Doug On 10/26/14, 6:35 PM, "Brandon Logan" wrote: >Good questions Doug. My answers are as follows: > >1. Yes >2. Some time after Kilo (same as I don't know when) >3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the scope >for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from >the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that >repeating itself within an advanced services project. More and more >"advanced services" will get added in and the scope will become too >large. There would definitely be benefits to it though, but I think we >would end up being right where we are today. >4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to >discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the >harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, >and more thoroughly after the summit. > >Yes the brunt of the time will not be spent on the API, but since it >seemed like an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, I figured >it warranted a discussion. > >Thanks, >Brandon > >On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:15 +, Doug Wiegley wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Before we get into the details of which API goes where, I’d like to see >>us >> answer the questions of: >> >> 1. Are we spinning out? >> 2. When? >> 3. With or without the rest of advanced services? >> 4. Do we want to wait until we (the royal “we” of “the Neutron team”) >>have >> had the Paris summit discussions on vendor split-out and adv. services >> spinout before we answer those questions? (Yes, that question is >>leading.) >> >> To me, the “where does the API live” is an implementation detail, and >>not >> where the time will need to be spent. >> >> For the record, my answers are: >> >> 1. Yes. >> 2. I don’t know. >> 3. I don’t know; this needs some serious discussion. >> 4. Yes. >> >> Thanks, >> doug >> >> On 10/24/14, 3:47 PM, "Brandon Logan" >>wrote: >> >> >With the recent talk about advanced services spinning out of Neutron, >> >and the fact most of the LBaaS community has wanted LBaaS to spin out >>of >> >Neutron, I wanted to bring up a possibility and gauge interest and >> >opinion on this possibility. >> > >> >Octavia is going to (and has) an API. The current thinking is that an >> >Octavia driver will be created in Neutron LBaaS that will make a >> >requests to the Octavia API. When LBaaS spins out of Neutron, it will >> >need a standalone API. Octavia's API seems to be a good solution to >> >this. It will support vendor drivers much like the current Neutron >> >LBaaS does. It has a similar API as Neutron LBaaS v2, but its not an >> >exact duplicate. Octavia will be growing more mature in stackforge at >>a >> >higher velocity than an Openstack project, so I expect by the time Kilo >> >comes around it's API will be very mature. >> > >> >Octavia's API doesn't have to be called Octavia either. It can be >> >separated out and it can be called Openstack LBaaS, and the rest of >> >Octavia (the actual brains of it) will just be another driver to >> >Openstack LBaaS, which would retain the Octavia name. >> > >> >This is my PROS and CONS list to using Octavia's API as the spun out >> >LBaaS: >> > >> >PROS >> >1. Time will need to be spent on a spun out LBaaS's API anyway. >>Octavia >> >will already have this done. >> >2. Most of the same people working on O
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Octavia's API becoming spun out LBaaS
Good questions Doug. My answers are as follows: 1. Yes 2. Some time after Kilo (same as I don't know when) 3. The main reason a spin out makes sense from Neutron is that the scope for Neutron is too large for the attention advances services needs from the Neutron Core. If all of advanced services spins out, I see that repeating itself within an advanced services project. More and more "advanced services" will get added in and the scope will become too large. There would definitely be benefits to it though, but I think we would end up being right where we are today. 4. I brought this up now so that we can decide whether we want to discuss it at the advanced services spin out session. I don't see the harm in opinions being discussed before the summit, during the summit, and more thoroughly after the summit. Yes the brunt of the time will not be spent on the API, but since it seemed like an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, I figured it warranted a discussion. Thanks, Brandon On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:15 +, Doug Wiegley wrote: > Hi all, > > Before we get into the details of which API goes where, I’d like to see us > answer the questions of: > > 1. Are we spinning out? > 2. When? > 3. With or without the rest of advanced services? > 4. Do we want to wait until we (the royal “we” of “the Neutron team”) have > had the Paris summit discussions on vendor split-out and adv. services > spinout before we answer those questions? (Yes, that question is leading.) > > To me, the “where does the API live” is an implementation detail, and not > where the time will need to be spent. > > For the record, my answers are: > > 1. Yes. > 2. I don’t know. > 3. I don’t know; this needs some serious discussion. > 4. Yes. > > Thanks, > doug > > On 10/24/14, 3:47 PM, "Brandon Logan" wrote: > > >With the recent talk about advanced services spinning out of Neutron, > >and the fact most of the LBaaS community has wanted LBaaS to spin out of > >Neutron, I wanted to bring up a possibility and gauge interest and > >opinion on this possibility. > > > >Octavia is going to (and has) an API. The current thinking is that an > >Octavia driver will be created in Neutron LBaaS that will make a > >requests to the Octavia API. When LBaaS spins out of Neutron, it will > >need a standalone API. Octavia's API seems to be a good solution to > >this. It will support vendor drivers much like the current Neutron > >LBaaS does. It has a similar API as Neutron LBaaS v2, but its not an > >exact duplicate. Octavia will be growing more mature in stackforge at a > >higher velocity than an Openstack project, so I expect by the time Kilo > >comes around it's API will be very mature. > > > >Octavia's API doesn't have to be called Octavia either. It can be > >separated out and it can be called Openstack LBaaS, and the rest of > >Octavia (the actual brains of it) will just be another driver to > >Openstack LBaaS, which would retain the Octavia name. > > > >This is my PROS and CONS list to using Octavia's API as the spun out > >LBaaS: > > > >PROS > >1. Time will need to be spent on a spun out LBaaS's API anyway. Octavia > >will already have this done. > >2. Most of the same people working on Octavia have worked on Neutron > >LBaaS v2. > >3. It's out of Neutron faster, which is good for Neutron and LBaaS. > > > >CONS > >1. The Octavia API is dissimilar enough from Neutron LBaaS v2 to be yet > >another version of an LBaaS API. > >2. The Octavia API will also have a separate Operator API which will > >most likely only work with Octavia, not any vendors. > > > >The CONS are easily solvable, and IMHO the PROS greatly outweigh the > >CONS. > > > >This is just my opinion though and I'd like to hear back from as many as > >possible. Add on to the PROS and CONS if wanted. > > > >If it is direction we can agree on going then we can add as a talking > >point in the advanced services spin out meeting: > > > >http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/event/8a0b7c1d64883c08286e4446e163f1a6#. > >VEq66HWx3UY > > > >Thanks, > >Brandon > >___ > >OpenStack-dev mailing list > >OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Octavia's API becoming spun out LBaaS
Hi all, Before we get into the details of which API goes where, I’d like to see us answer the questions of: 1. Are we spinning out? 2. When? 3. With or without the rest of advanced services? 4. Do we want to wait until we (the royal “we” of “the Neutron team”) have had the Paris summit discussions on vendor split-out and adv. services spinout before we answer those questions? (Yes, that question is leading.) To me, the “where does the API live” is an implementation detail, and not where the time will need to be spent. For the record, my answers are: 1. Yes. 2. I don’t know. 3. I don’t know; this needs some serious discussion. 4. Yes. Thanks, doug On 10/24/14, 3:47 PM, "Brandon Logan" wrote: >With the recent talk about advanced services spinning out of Neutron, >and the fact most of the LBaaS community has wanted LBaaS to spin out of >Neutron, I wanted to bring up a possibility and gauge interest and >opinion on this possibility. > >Octavia is going to (and has) an API. The current thinking is that an >Octavia driver will be created in Neutron LBaaS that will make a >requests to the Octavia API. When LBaaS spins out of Neutron, it will >need a standalone API. Octavia's API seems to be a good solution to >this. It will support vendor drivers much like the current Neutron >LBaaS does. It has a similar API as Neutron LBaaS v2, but its not an >exact duplicate. Octavia will be growing more mature in stackforge at a >higher velocity than an Openstack project, so I expect by the time Kilo >comes around it's API will be very mature. > >Octavia's API doesn't have to be called Octavia either. It can be >separated out and it can be called Openstack LBaaS, and the rest of >Octavia (the actual brains of it) will just be another driver to >Openstack LBaaS, which would retain the Octavia name. > >This is my PROS and CONS list to using Octavia's API as the spun out >LBaaS: > >PROS >1. Time will need to be spent on a spun out LBaaS's API anyway. Octavia >will already have this done. >2. Most of the same people working on Octavia have worked on Neutron >LBaaS v2. >3. It's out of Neutron faster, which is good for Neutron and LBaaS. > >CONS >1. The Octavia API is dissimilar enough from Neutron LBaaS v2 to be yet >another version of an LBaaS API. >2. The Octavia API will also have a separate Operator API which will >most likely only work with Octavia, not any vendors. > >The CONS are easily solvable, and IMHO the PROS greatly outweigh the >CONS. > >This is just my opinion though and I'd like to hear back from as many as >possible. Add on to the PROS and CONS if wanted. > >If it is direction we can agree on going then we can add as a talking >point in the advanced services spin out meeting: > >http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/event/8a0b7c1d64883c08286e4446e163f1a6#. >VEq66HWx3UY > >Thanks, >Brandon >___ >OpenStack-dev mailing list >OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Octavia's API becoming spun out LBaaS
+1 to this, eh! Though it sounds more like you're talking about spinning the Octavia user API out of Octavia to become it's own thing (ie. "Openstack LBaaS"), and then ensuring a standardized driver interface that vendors (including Octavia) will interface with. It's sort of a half-dozen of one, six of the other kind of deal. To the pros, I would add: Spin out from Neutron ensures that LBaaS uses "clean" interfaces to the networking layer, and separation of concerns here means that Neutron and LBaaS can evolve independently. (And testing and failure modes, etc. all become easier with separation of concerns.) One other thing to consider (not sure if pro or con): I know at Atlanta there was a lot of talk around using the Neutron flavor framework to allow for multiple vendors in a single installation as well as differentiated product offerings for Operators. If / when LBaaS is spun out of Neutron, LBaaS will still probably have need for something like Neutron flavors, even if it isn't an equivalent implementation. (Noting of course, that no implementation of Neutron flavors actually presently exists. XD ) Stephen On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Brandon Logan wrote: > With the recent talk about advanced services spinning out of Neutron, > and the fact most of the LBaaS community has wanted LBaaS to spin out of > Neutron, I wanted to bring up a possibility and gauge interest and > opinion on this possibility. > > Octavia is going to (and has) an API. The current thinking is that an > Octavia driver will be created in Neutron LBaaS that will make a > requests to the Octavia API. When LBaaS spins out of Neutron, it will > need a standalone API. Octavia's API seems to be a good solution to > this. It will support vendor drivers much like the current Neutron > LBaaS does. It has a similar API as Neutron LBaaS v2, but its not an > exact duplicate. Octavia will be growing more mature in stackforge at a > higher velocity than an Openstack project, so I expect by the time Kilo > comes around it's API will be very mature. > > Octavia's API doesn't have to be called Octavia either. It can be > separated out and it can be called Openstack LBaaS, and the rest of > Octavia (the actual brains of it) will just be another driver to > Openstack LBaaS, which would retain the Octavia name. > > This is my PROS and CONS list to using Octavia's API as the spun out > LBaaS: > > PROS > 1. Time will need to be spent on a spun out LBaaS's API anyway. Octavia > will already have this done. > 2. Most of the same people working on Octavia have worked on Neutron > LBaaS v2. > 3. It's out of Neutron faster, which is good for Neutron and LBaaS. > > CONS > 1. The Octavia API is dissimilar enough from Neutron LBaaS v2 to be yet > another version of an LBaaS API. > 2. The Octavia API will also have a separate Operator API which will > most likely only work with Octavia, not any vendors. > > The CONS are easily solvable, and IMHO the PROS greatly outweigh the > CONS. > > This is just my opinion though and I'd like to hear back from as many as > possible. Add on to the PROS and CONS if wanted. > > If it is direction we can agree on going then we can add as a talking > point in the advanced services spin out meeting: > > > http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/event/8a0b7c1d64883c08286e4446e163f1a6#.VEq66HWx3UY > > Thanks, > Brandon > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Stephen Balukoff Blue Box Group, LLC (800)613-4305 x807 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
