On Mon Dec 01 2014 at 2:06:18 PM henry hly henry4...@gmail.com wrote:
My suggestion is that starting with LB and VPN as a trial, which can
never be distributed.
.. Sure they can! Loadbalancing in particular _should_ be distributed if
both the clients and backends are in the same cluster...
FWaas is typically classified to L4-L7. But if they are developed
standalone, it would be very difficult for implementing with a
distributed manner. For example, with W-E traffic control in DVR mode,
we can't rely on a external python client rest api call, the policy
execution module must be
On 19 November 2014 at 11:31, Mark McClain m...@mcclain.xyz wrote:
All-
Over the last several months, the members of the Networking Program have
been discussing ways to improve the management of our program. When the
Quantum project was initially launched, we envisioned a combined service
Kyle Mestery wrote:
We're in the process of writing a spec for this now, but we first
wanted community feedback. Also, it's on the TC agenda for next week I
believe, so once we get signoff from the TC, we'll propose the spec.
Frankly, I don't think the TC really has to sign-off on what seems
On 11/20/2014 05:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Kyle Mestery wrote:
We're in the process of writing a spec for this now, but we first
wanted community feedback. Also, it's on the TC agenda for next week I
believe, so once we get signoff from the TC, we'll propose the spec.
Frankly, I don't
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/20/2014 05:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Kyle Mestery wrote:
We're in the process of writing a spec for this now, but we first
wanted community feedback. Also, it's on the TC agenda for next week I
believe, so once
On 11/19/14, 5:02 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com
wrote:
Hi,
so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo
cycle.
One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different
questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into
separate repositories
On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark, Kyle,
What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark, Kyle,
What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about
this initiative? Blueprint spec, wiki page, or something else?
We're in the process of writing a spec for this now, but we first
wanted
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com wrote:
Hi,
so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle.
One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different
priorities and velocities. Wouldn’t that be easier to track/manage as
While I agree that a unified endpoint could be a good solution for now, I
think that the easiest way of doing this would be by implementing it as an
external Neutron service.
Using python entry_points, the advanced service extensions can be loaded in
Neutron just like we do today (using
All-
Over the last several months, the members of the Networking Program have been
discussing ways to improve the management of our program. When the Quantum
project was initially launched, we envisioned a combined service that included
all things network related. This vision served us well
On Nov 18, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Mark McClain m...@mcclain.xyz wrote:
All-
Over the last several months, the members of the Networking Program have been
discussing ways to improve the management of our program. When the Quantum
project was initially launched, we envisioned a combined
There would not be a service or REST API associated with the Advanced
Services code base? Would the REST API to talk to those services be part of
the Neutron repository?
This is a good question.
Also, I would love to have more details about the following point:
- The Advance Service
Hi,
so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle.
One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different priorities
and velocities. Wouldn’t that be easier to track/manage as separate launchpad
projects and specs repos, irrespective of who is
On Nov 18, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote:
There would not be a service or REST API associated with the Advanced
Services code base? Would the REST API to talk to those services be part of
the Neutron repository?
Doug
We had considered having a standalone
Mark, Kyle,
What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about
this initiative? Blueprint spec, wiki page, or something else?
One thing I personally found useful about the spec approach adopted in [1],
was that we could quickly and effectively incorporate community
On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark, Kyle,
What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about this
initiative? Blueprint spec, wiki page, or something else?
One thing I personally found useful about the spec approach adopted in [1],
On 18 November 2014 15:33, Mark McClain m...@mcclain.xyz wrote:
On Nov 18, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com
wrote:
There would not be a service or REST API associated with the Advanced
Services code base? Would the REST API to talk to those services be part of
the
@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into
separate repositories
On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Armando M.
arma...@gmail.commailto:arma...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark, Kyle,
What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all
)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into
separate repositories
On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark, Kyle,
What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about
this initiative
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 at 4:08 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into
separate repositories
On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com
Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 at 4:08 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron
23 matches
Mail list logo
