Thanks!
> ---Bo
>
> __
> From: "Brandon Logan"
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 1:17:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS
questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Unanswered questions in object
model refactor blueprint
Hi Bo--
Haproxy is able to have IPv4 front-ends with IPv6 back-ends (and visa versa)
because it actually initiates a separate TCP connection between the front end
client and the
: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:18:42 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Unanswered questions in object
model refactor blueprint
Hi Brandon!
Please see i
ge questions)" <
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> *Sent: *Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:18:42 AM
>
> *Subject: *Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Unanswered questions in
> object model refactor blueprint
>
> Hi Brandon!
>
> Please see inline..
>
>
>
(not for usage questions)"
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:18:42 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Unanswered questions in object
model refactor blueprint
Hi Brandon!
Please see inline..
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Brandon Logan < brandon.lo...@rackspace.com >
Hi Vijay,
On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 15:18 -0700, Vijay B wrote:
> Hi Brandon!
>
>
> Please see inline..
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Brandon Logan
> wrote:
> Hi Vijay,
>
> On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 16:27 -0700, Vijay B wrote:
> > Hi Brandon,
>
Hi Brandon!
Please see inline..
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Brandon Logan wrote:
> Hi Vijay,
>
> On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 16:27 -0700, Vijay B wrote:
> > Hi Brandon,
> >
> >
> > The current reviews of the schema itself are absolutely valid and
> > necessary, and must go on. However, the p
Hi Vijay,
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 16:27 -0700, Vijay B wrote:
> Hi Brandon,
>
>
> The current reviews of the schema itself are absolutely valid and
> necessary, and must go on. However, the place of implementation of
> this schema needs to be clarified. Rather than make any changes
> whatsoever to
Hi Stephen
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 19:42 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote:
> Hi y'all!
>
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Brandon Logan
> wrote:
> Referencing this blueprint:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89903/5/specs/juno/lbaas-api-and-objmodel-improvement.rst
>
Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 at 8:42 PM
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re:
ev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Unanswered questions in object
model refactor blueprint
Hi y'all!
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Brandon Logan
mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com>> wrote:
Referencing this blueprint:
https://review.opens
Hi y'all!
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Brandon Logan wrote:
> Referencing this blueprint:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89903/5/specs/juno/lbaas-api-and-objmodel-improvement.rst
>
> Anyone who has suggestions to possible issues or can answer some of
> these questions please respond.
Hi Brandon,
The current reviews of the schema itself are absolutely valid and
necessary, and must go on. However, the place of implementation of this
schema needs to be clarified. Rather than make any changes whatsoever to
the existing neutron db schema for LBaaS, this new db schema outlined needs
Thanks, Brandon. My opinion, reproduced from an IRC conversation that we
had earlier today:
I don't have a strong objection, just an implementation shudder. Of the
two backends that I'm familiar with, they support 1:N, not N:N So, we
fake it by duping listeners on the fly. But, consider the ext
Referencing this blueprint:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89903/5/specs/juno/lbaas-api-and-objmodel-improvement.rst
Anyone who has suggestions to possible issues or can answer some of
these questions please respond.
1. LoadBalancer to Listener relationship M:N vs 1:N
The main reason we went w
15 matches
Mail list logo
