Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Status and Expectations for Juno

2014-07-29 Thread Stephen Balukoff
Just to put my $0.02 in: While it's a little disappointing that we won't get everything into Juno that we'd like, I think the effort this team has put into getting us to where we are is laudable. Although I would really like to see L7 land as well, I have no problem with the prioritization as laid

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Status and Expectations for Juno

2014-07-29 Thread Doug Wiegley
Yes. There is an outside chance that someone can re-add the agent after we get the agent-less driver in, for Juno, but if v2 is not going to be the default extension, I’m not sure it’s worth the effort, since some version of Octavia should land in Kilo, during which I would also expect v2 to becom

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Status and Expectations for Juno

2014-07-29 Thread Kyle Mestery
This all looks good to me. My only concern is that we need to land a driver in Juno as well. The HA-proxy based, agent-less driver which runs on the API node is the only choice here, right? Otherwise, the scalable work is being done in Octavia. Is that correct? On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Bra

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Status and Expectations for Juno

2014-07-28 Thread Brandon Logan
That was essentially the point of my email. To get across that not everything we want to go in Juno will make it in and because of this V2 will not be in the state that many users will be able to use. Also, to get people's opinions on what they think is high priority. On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 18:11

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Status and Expectations for Juno

2014-07-28 Thread Doug Wiegley
I don’t think the lbaas roadmap has changed (including octavia), just the delivery timeline. Nor am I debating making the ref driver simpler (I’m on record as supporting that decision, and still do.) And if that was the only wart, I’m sure we’d all ignore it and plow forward. But it’s not, and a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Status and Expectations for Juno

2014-07-28 Thread Jorge Miramontes
Hey Doug, In terms of taking a step backward from a user perspective I'm fine with making v1 the default. I think there was always the notion of supporting what v1 currently offers by making a config change. Thus, Horizon should still have all the support it had in Icehouse. I am a little worried

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Status and Expectations for Juno

2014-07-28 Thread Doug Wiegley
Hi Brandon, Thanks for bringing this up. If you¹re going to call me out by name, I guess I have to respond to the Horizon thing. Yes, I don¹t like it, from a user perspective. We promise a bunch of new features, new driversŠ and none of them are visible. Or the horizon support does land, and su

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Status and Expectations for Juno

2014-07-27 Thread Brandon Logan
There is going to be a mad rush to get many things into Neutron for Juno here in the last few weeks. Neutron is overly saturated with code reviews. So I'd like to list out some of the things LBaaS had planned for Juno, what the status each of those are, and my thoughts on the feasibility of actua