Folks,
As we're discussing single-call approach, I think it would be helpful to
actually implement such API (e,g. practically, in the code) and see how it
works, how compatibility is maintained and such.
I think you could start with basic features available for single call -
e.g. single vip and si
We look forward to your proposal and I hope that does get us closer (if
not all the way to) an agreed upon revision. Also, thank you for taking
the time to fully understand our thought processes on some of the
features we want and decisions we made in the proposal.
Thanks,
Brandon
On 04/17/2
Hi Brandon,
Yep! I agree that both those definitions are correct: It all depends on
context.
I'm usually OK with going with whatever definition is in popular use by the
user-base. However, "load balancer" as a term is so ambiguous among people
actually developing a cloud load balancing system tha
Stephen,
Thanks for elaborating on this. I agreed and still do that our
proposal's load balancer falls more in line with that glossary's term
for "listener" and now can see the discrepancy with "load balancer".
Yes, in this case the term "load balancer" would have to be redefined,
but that d
Hi Brandon!
Per the meeting this morning, I seem to recall you were looking to have me
elaborate on why the term 'load balancer' as used in your API proposal is
significantly different from the term 'load balancer' as used in the
glossary at: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/Glossary
:
Sorry about that. It should be readable now.
From: Eugene Nikanorov [enikano...@mirantis.com<mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 3:51 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neut
ne Nikanorov [enikano...@mirantis.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:31 PM
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API
> revision progress
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I'v
-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:17 PM
To:
"openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API revision
progress
ussed in
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/LoadbalancerInstance/Discussion
Since you linked the object model proposals could you also link the "rest
of the proposals" or are you referring to our draft as "rest of proposal"?
Thanks,
Eugene.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Brandon Logan
ma
t; Eugene.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Brandon Logan <
>> brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Here is Jorge and team’s API proposal based on Atlas. The document
>>> has some questions and answers about why decisions were mad
hanks,
Brandon Logan
From: Eugene Nikanorov mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com>>
Reply-To:
"openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 7:00 AM
To:
"openstack-dev@lists.op
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API revision
progress
Hi folks,
I've briefly looked over the doc.
I think whole idea to base the API on Atlas misses the content switching use
case, which is ver
3:51 PM
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API
> revision progress
>
> Hi Brandon,
>
> Seems that doc has not been made public, so please share.
>
> Thanks,
> Eugen
"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 7:00 AM
To:
"openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements an
esday, April 15, 2014 at 7:00 AM
> To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org" >
>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API
> revision progress
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Thanks for a good summary. Some comments inline.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 15
nstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API revision
progress
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for a good summary. Some comments inline.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Stephen Balukoff
mailto:sbaluk...@bluebox.net>> wrote:
So! On this front:
On Apr 14, 2014, at 8:20 PM, Stephen Balukoff
mailto:sbaluk...@bluebox.net>> wrote:
Hello y'all!
Over the last few months, I feel like we've seen a renewed vigor for
participation in making the LBaaS project successful. After the (still
unresolved) object model discussion started in January,
,
Brandon Logan
From: Eugene Nikanorov [enikano...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:00 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API revision
progress
Hi Stephen,
Th
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for a good summary. Some comments inline.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Stephen Balukoff wrote:
>
>
> So! On this front:
>
> 1. Does is make sense to keep filling out use cases in Samuel's document
> above? I can think of several more use cases that our customers actually
>
Hello y'all!
Over the last few months, I feel like we've seen a renewed vigor for
participation in making the LBaaS project successful. After the (still
unresolved) object model discussion started in January, based on feedback
we were getting from Neutron core developers (mainly Mark McClain, from
20 matches
Mail list logo
