Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Weekly meetings resuming + agenda

2014-08-07 Thread Brandon Logan
, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote: When is the plan to move the meeting to IRC? On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 15:30 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote: Action items from today's Octavia meeting: 1. We're going to hold off

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Weekly meetings resuming + agenda

2014-08-07 Thread Brandon Logan
Those are definitely other big reasons, and probably the reason it is planned to move to IRC in the future, no matter what. I was just wondering how soon, if soon at all. On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 12:35 -0700, Stefano Maffulli wrote: On Thu 07 Aug 2014 12:12:26 PM PDT, Brandon Logan wrote: It's

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Improvements to current reviews

2014-08-09 Thread Brandon Logan
So I've done some work on improving the code on the current pending reviews. And would like to get peoples' opinions on whether I should add antoher patch set to those reviews, or add the changes as as another review dependent on the pending ones. To be clear, no matter what the first review in

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Continuing on Calling driver interface on every API request

2014-08-11 Thread Brandon Logan
Yeah what I meant was the only solution I could come up with so that the driver gets passed every call is to have the every entity have a provider. I do believe this is a bit cumbersome for a user, and extra validation would be needed to verify that two entities linked together cannot have

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Continuing on Calling driver interface on every API request

2014-08-11 Thread Brandon Logan
Hi Eugene, An example of the HM issue (and really this can happen with any entity) is if the driver the API sends the configuration to does not actually support the value of an attribute. For example: Provider A support PING health monitor type, Provider B does not. API allows the PING health

[openstack-dev] [Octavia] Object Model and DB Structure

2014-08-14 Thread Brandon Logan
So I've been assuming that the Octavia object model would be an exact copy of the neutron lbaas one with additional information for Octavia. However, after thinking about it I'm not sure this is the right way to go because the object model in neutron lbaas may change in the future, and Octavia

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Object Model and DB Structure

2014-08-15 Thread Brandon Logan
that a LoadBalancer would map to an haproxy instance - and a listener would be part of that haproxy. But I heard Stephen say that this so not so clear cut. So maybe listeners map to haproxy instances... German -Original Message- From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com] Sent

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Object Model and DB Structure

2014-08-15 Thread Brandon Logan
for each object clearly. Does this make sense? Indeed. Stephen On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote: Yeah, need details on that. Maybe he's talking about having haproxy listen on many ips and ports, each one being

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Failure when trying to rebase to latest v2 patches

2014-08-17 Thread Brandon Logan
Hi Vijay, Are you trying to rebase by pulling down the new changes and rebasing your branch on top of that? That'll usually end up wrong because of commit hashes. Have you tried using the rebase button gerrit provides? Let me know how exactly you're trying to rebase if you've already tried

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Object Model and DB Structure

2014-08-17 Thread Brandon Logan
Oh hello again! You know the drill! On Sat, 2014-08-16 at 11:42 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote: Hi Brandon, Responses in-line: On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote: Comments in-line On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 17:18 -0700

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Failure when trying to rebase to latest v2 patches

2014-08-18 Thread Brandon Logan
Hey Vijay, The reason that didn't work is because the netscaler-lbaas-driver-v2 had an older patch set of the 105610 change. That means it was an entirely different commit so after you rebased you ended up having two commits with a duplicate commit message (which means duplicate Change-IDs).

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Object Model and DB Structure

2014-08-18 Thread Brandon Logan
) - so having that would be great. I like the proposed status :-) Thanks, German -Original Message- From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:57 PM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Object

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Minutes from 8/13/2014 meeting

2014-08-18 Thread Brandon Logan
Hi Salvatore, It'd be great to get your contributions in this! If you could only bring your knowledge and experience with Neutron to the table that'd be very beneficial. Looking forward to it. Comments in-line On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 23:06 +0200, Salvatore Orlando wrote: Hi Trevor, thanks

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Agenda for 2014-08-20 meeting

2014-08-19 Thread Brandon Logan
After thinking about what can be done to start, because I hate being stagnant, I decided to create an etherpad of things that I think need more discussion or can start working on now. https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Octavia_Action_Items Add on to this list if you know of others, as I am sure

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Error at context exit for subnet in unit test case

2014-08-20 Thread Brandon Logan
Hey Vijay, Figured out the issue you are having. In that particular test you are creating the same subnet twice. The first time you create it is in the contextlib.nested, the second time is the self.loadbalancer method that will create a subnet if you do not pass it. So you should pass

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [LBaaS] LBaaS v2 API syntax additions/changes

2014-08-25 Thread Brandon Logan
Hi John, Comments in-line On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 16:37 +0300, John Schwarz wrote: Hi, With the ongoing development of LBaaS v2, support for v2 of LBaaS in neutronclient is also being developed, as can be seen in [1]. The current implementation adds a new syntax for v2; Whereas the v1 syntax

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [LBaaS] LBaaS v2 API syntax additions/changes

2014-08-25 Thread Brandon Logan
Hi Clark, From my understanding the keystone catalog will not contain endpoints for neutron extensions. I could see it being allowed but since Neutron can enable/disable extensions on a whim, there would need to be some cross project communication between keystone and neutron. I'm sure there are

[openstack-dev] [Octavia] Using Nova Scheduling Affinity and AntiAffinity

2014-08-27 Thread Brandon Logan
Nova scheduler has ServerGroupAffinityFilter and ServerGroupAntiAffinityFilter which does the colocation and apolocation for VMs. I think this is something we've discussed before about taking advantage of nova's scheduling. I need to verify that this will work with what we (RAX) plan to do, but

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Using Nova Scheduling Affinity and AntiAffinity

2014-08-28 Thread Brandon Logan
://docs.openstack.org/developer/sahara/userdoc/features.html On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote: Nova scheduler has ServerGroupAffinityFilter and ServerGroupAntiAffinityFilter which does the colocation and apolocation

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Using Nova Scheduling Affinity and AntiAffinity

2014-08-28 Thread Brandon Logan
a problem using them to fulfill our requirements around colocation and apolocation. Stephen On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote: Yeah we were looking at the SameHost and DifferentHost filters and that will probably do

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [neutron] Specs for K release

2014-08-28 Thread Brandon Logan
Kyle, Does this apply to blueprints that are destined for the incubator as well? I assume the incubator does require a spec process too. Thanks, Brandon On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 08:37 -0500, Kyle Mestery wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Michael Still mi...@stillhq.com wrote: For nova we

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Using Nova Scheduling Affinity and AntiAffinity

2014-08-28 Thread Brandon Logan
investigated ServerGroups a little more before we discard it. The operator should really decide how he/she wants Anti-affinity by setting the right filters in nova. Susanne On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote: Trevor and I just worked

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [LBaaS] LBaaS v2 API syntax additions/changes

2014-08-28 Thread Brandon Logan
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 14:22 +0300, John Schwarz wrote: On 08/25/2014 10:06 PM, Brandon Logan wrote: 2. Therefor, there should be some configuration to specifically enable either version (not both) in case LBaaS is needed. In this case, the other version is disabled (ie. a REST query

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [LBaaS] LBaaS v2 API syntax additions/changes

2014-08-28 Thread Brandon Logan
: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:22:33 PM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [LBaaS] LBaaS v2 API syntax additions/changes On 08/25/2014 10:06 PM, Brandon Logan wrote: 2. Therefor, there should be some configuration to specifically enable either version (not both) in case

Re: [openstack-dev] Design sessions for Neutron LBaaS. What do we want/need?

2014-08-28 Thread Brandon Logan
I'm not sure exactly how many design sessions will be available but it seems like 2 for Neutron LBaaS and 2 for Octavia will be hard to accomplish. Neutron LBaaS had 2 in Atlanta didn't it? One broad one ofr Neutron LBaaS and one more specific to TLS and L7. I'm totally on board for having 2

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBass] Design sessions for Neutron LBaaS. What do we want/need?

2014-08-28 Thread Brandon Logan
Adding correct subject tags because I replied to the original email. I blame you Susanne! On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 23:47 -0500, Brandon Logan wrote: I'm not sure exactly how many design sessions will be available but it seems like 2 for Neutron LBaaS and 2 for Octavia will be hard to accomplish

[openstack-dev] [Octavia] Migration review update

2014-08-28 Thread Brandon Logan
Updated the migration review: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/114671/3 Added the active_node and spare_node table. Not sure if this is what people had in mind for this, but we do need a table to map load balancer to VMs/nodes/devices, so I figured an active_node table would be appropriate for

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas][octavia]

2014-09-01 Thread Brandon Logan
Hi Susanne and everyone, My opinions are that keeping it in stackforge until it gets mature is the best solution. I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that. Whenever it is mature then, and only then, we should try to get it into openstack one way or another. If Neutron LBaaS v2 is still

[openstack-dev] [Octavia] Blueprints

2014-09-02 Thread Brandon Logan
Added blueprints of tasks in progress and tasks to be done. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/octavia If you are working on one of these and your name is not assigned please let me know. If you are able to assign yourself that'd be even better but I'm not sure exactly who can do what. Also, if

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas][octavia]

2014-09-02 Thread Brandon Logan
https://keybase.io/rm_you On 9/1/14 10:12 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas][octavia]

2014-09-02 Thread Brandon Logan
https://keybase.io/rm_you On 9/1/14 10:12 PM, Brandon Logan

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][qa][neutron] Neutron full job, advanced services, and the integrated gate

2014-09-03 Thread Brandon Logan
On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 15:41 -0500, Kyle Mestery wrote: On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote: On 08/26/2014 07:47 PM, Salvatore Orlando wrote: TL; DR A few folks are proposing to stop running tests for neutron advanced services [ie: (lb|vpn|fw)aas] in the

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][qa][neutron] Neutron full job, advanced services, and the integrated gate

2014-09-03 Thread Brandon Logan
On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 23:10 +0200, Salvatore Orlando wrote: On 3 September 2014 22:10, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote: TL; DR

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBass] Item for the meeting tomorrow

2014-09-03 Thread Brandon Logan
Since progress on LBaaS V2 has come to a halt due to the incubator limbo, but mainly because development focus has been put on Octavia for most of the team, I'd like to suggest discussing whether it is worth pursuing a solution to the issue (at least what I see as an issue) of drivers being

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Question about where to render haproxy configurations

2014-09-07 Thread Brandon Logan
Hi German, Comments in-line On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 04:49 +, Eichberger, German wrote: Hi Steven, Thanks for taking the time to lay out the components clearly. I think we are pretty much on the same pageJ Driver vs, Driver-less I strongly believe that REST is a cleaner

[openstack-dev] [WSME] Complex Type Validation Issue On Deserialization

2014-09-10 Thread Brandon Logan
I'm having an issue where incoming validation of a complex type with a an attribute of type IPv4Address is failing validation when it is a correct ipv4 address. Same is happening for UuidType and IPv6AddressType. I am using using Pecan with WSME 0.6.1 and python 2.7.6. Complex Type: class

Re: [openstack-dev] [WSME] Complex Type Validation Issue On Deserialization

2014-09-11 Thread Brandon Logan
, Brandon On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 04:45 +, Brandon Logan wrote: I'm having an issue where incoming validation of a complex type with a an attribute of type IPv4Address is failing validation when it is a correct ipv4 address. Same is happening for UuidType and IPv6AddressType. I am using

[openstack-dev] [Octavia] Responsibilities for controller drivers

2014-09-12 Thread Brandon Logan
IN IRC the topic came up about supporting many-to-many load balancers to amphorae. I believe a consensus was made that allowing only one-to-many load balancers to amphorae would be the first step forward, and re-evaluate later, since colocation and apolocation will need to work (which brings up

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Responsibilities for controller drivers

2014-09-15 Thread Brandon Logan
Hi Stephen, Same drill On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 13:33 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote: Hi Brandon! My responses in-line: On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote: IN IRC the topic came up about supporting many-to-many load balancers

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Migrations in feature branch

2014-09-23 Thread Brandon Logan
Well the problem with resequencing on a merge is that a code change for the first migration must be added first and merged into the feature branch before the merge is done. Obviously this takes review time unless someone of authority pushes it through. We'll run into this same problem on rebases

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Enterprise Ready Features

2014-02-26 Thread Brandon Logan
TL;DR: Are enterprise needed features (HA, scalability, resource management, etc) on this project's roadmap. If so, how much of a priority is it? I've been doing some research on Neutron LBaaS to determine the viability and what needs to be done to allow for it to become an enterprise ready

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Enterprise Ready Features

2014-02-28 Thread Brandon Logan
][LBaaS] Enterprise Ready Features On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 18:46 +, Brandon Logan wrote: TL;DR: Are enterprise needed features (HA, scalability, resource management, etc) on this project's roadmap. Yes. Although, due to my disdain for the term enterprise, I'd point out that all of those features

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Debugger issues with service plugins

2014-03-06 Thread Brandon Logan
While learning the code base of neutron and the extensions better, I've been attempting to get a debugger working with Neutron with service plugins (such as l3router and lbaas). When running the debugger without service plugins everything works well. When running the debugger with the service

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Developer documentation

2014-03-11 Thread Brandon Logan
As a someone who has just spent the time to learn the Neutron code, this would have been quite helpful when I started. I'll add on to this when it is merged in. Awesome job! Thanks, Brandon Logan From: Collins, Sean [sean_colli...@cable.comcast.com

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] LBaaS design proposals

2014-03-13 Thread Brandon Logan
This is the object model proposals: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/LoadbalancerInstance/Discussion From: Prashanth Hari [hvpr...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:51 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Neutron LBaaS, Libra and managed services

2014-03-24 Thread Brandon Logan
Creating a separate driver for every new need brings up a concern I have had. If we are to implement a separate driver for every need then the permutations are endless and may cause a lot drivers and technical debt. If someone wants an ha-haproxy driver then great. What if they want it to be

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Neutron LBaaS, Libra and managed services

2014-03-26 Thread Brandon Logan
safe taking with a “vendor passthru” API. John On Monday, March 24, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Brandon Logan wrote: Creating a separate driver for every new need brings up a concern I have had. If we are to implement a separate driver for every need then the permutations are endless and may cause a lot

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Implementing new LBaaS API

2014-06-15 Thread Brandon Logan
at 6:44 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote: Well we got a few opinions, but not enough understanding of the two options to make an informed decision. It was requested that the core reviewers respond

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Great Mid-cycle Sprint

2014-06-19 Thread Brandon Logan
Greetings all, I'd like to thank everyone who attended the LBaaS mid-cyle sprint for taking the time and effort to make the trip to San Antonio. This was a very productive sprint in all forms: direction, consensus, blueprints, documentation, and of course code. It was just great to be able to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] PTL and core team members

2014-06-22 Thread Brandon Logan
I'm thinking we are going to need more than 2 on the core team at first but it is hard to tell exactly how many people will be contributing code at first. I know we've got a lot of interested parties and the possibility that some 10+ people are actively contributing. Of course, these things can

Re: [openstack-dev] Should TLS settings for listener be set through separate API/model?

2014-06-23 Thread Brandon Logan
Vijay, I think the separate entity is still going to happen. I don't think it has remvoed. Or that is may just be my assumption. Thanks, Brandon On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 15:59 +, Vijay Venkatachalam wrote: Hi: In the “LBaaS TLS termination capability specification” proposal

Re: [openstack-dev] Should TLS settings for listener be set through separate API/model?

2014-06-23 Thread Brandon Logan
, Stephen On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote: Vijay, I think the separate entity is still going to happen. I don't think it has remvoed. Or that is may just be my assumption. Thanks

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for listener be set through separate API/model?

2014-06-23 Thread Brandon Logan
Whoops, [Neutron][LBaaS] got taken out of the subject line here. Putting it back in. On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 21:10 +, Brandon Logan wrote: Okay so we've talked a bit about this in IRC and now I'm sending this out as an update. Here are the options with pros and cons that have come from

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Which entities need status

2014-06-24 Thread Brandon Logan
the future is a bad thing and should never be done. Thanks, Doug On 6/24/14, 11:23 AM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote: I think we missed this discussion at the meet-up but I'd like to bring it up here. To me having a status on all entities doesn't make much sense

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Which entities need status

2014-06-24 Thread Brandon Logan
, again implies driver question (backend could queue for later, or error immediately, or let things run degraded, orŠ) Thanks, Doug On 6/24/14, 11:23 AM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Which entities need status

2014-06-24 Thread Brandon Logan
in the driver to do these updates. Regards, Vijay On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for listener be set through separate API/model?

2014-06-25 Thread Brandon Logan
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote: Whoops, [Neutron][LBaaS] got taken out of the subject line here

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Analyzing the critical path

2014-07-02 Thread Brandon Logan
Hi Sam, I'll comment on what I know in-line. On Wed, 2014-07-02 at 15:29 +, Samuel Bercovici wrote: To reiterate the Juno release plan from: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Juno_Release_Schedule Feature freeze is at: 21st August. I am listing tasks which we should consider to be

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Agenda for weekly IRC meeting

2014-07-02 Thread Brandon Logan
Some things I can think of for the agenda: New API - Are shim layers really needed for Juno? - If the old API and new API will coexist independently, why is a shim layer needed? - Has the caveat that the pools resource can exist independently in both APIs. This can be

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Status of entities that do not exist in a driver backend

2014-07-03 Thread Brandon Logan
With the new API and object model refactor there have been some issues arising dealing with the status of entities. The main issue is that Listener, Pool, Member, and Health Monitor can exist independent of a Load Balancer. The Load Balancer is the entity that will contain the information about

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Status of entities that do not exist in a driver backend

2014-07-04 Thread Brandon Logan
remain in 'PENDING_CREATE' until provisioned it would seem that the process got stuck in that status and may be in a bad state from user perspective. I like the idea of QUEUED or similar to reference that the object has been accepted but not provisioned. Phil On 7/3/14 10:28 AM, Brandon

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Status of entities that do not exist in a driver backend

2014-07-07 Thread Brandon Logan
wrote: On Jul 4, 2014, at 5:27 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote: Hi German, That actually brings up another thing that needs to be done. There is no DELETED state. When an entity is deleted, it is deleted from the database. I'd prefer a DELETED state so that should

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] LBaaS API Version 2 WIP in gerrit

2014-07-07 Thread Brandon Logan
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105331 It's a WIP and the shim layer still needs to be completed. Its a lot of code, I know. Please review it thoroughly and point out what needs to change. Thanks, Brandon ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] LBaaS API Version 2 WIP in gerrit

2014-07-08 Thread Brandon Logan
...@radware.com wrote: Hi Brandon I think the patch should be broken into few standalone sub patches. As for now it is huge and review is a challenge :) Thanks Avishay -Original Message- From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.commailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com] Sent: Tuesday

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] LBaaS API Version 2 WIP in gerrit

2014-07-08 Thread Brandon Logan
From: Brandon Logan [brandon.lo...@rackspace.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 1:53 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] LBaaS API Version 2 WIP in gerrit Avishay, You're probably right about breaking it up but I

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Wednesday meeting agenda topics

2014-07-09 Thread Brandon Logan
My personal opinion is I prefer the IRC meetings right now. I, personally, don't get any more value out of a video chat than I would with an IRC meeting. However, I know others do get more out of it, and that includes people on my team at Rackspace. Basically, what I am saying is I'd be fine

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Weekly IRC Meeting Agenda

2014-07-09 Thread Brandon Logan
one more agenda item is shim vs agent refactor. I sent the email out just a second ago. From: Jorge Miramontes [jorge.miramon...@rackspace.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 4:58 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject:

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Shim vs Agent Refactor

2014-07-09 Thread Brandon Logan
Shim will become quite complicated due to the fact we won't be able to actually send any load balancer information to the driver until a load balancer is linked to a listener, pool, and member. The reason is because for a vip to be created it needs attributes from a load balancer and listener.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Shim vs Agent Refactor

2014-07-10 Thread Brandon Logan
what was decided in the meeting. :) In any case, y'all should feel free to correct me here and/or raise other concerns we didn't think about, eh! Stephen On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.comUrlBlockedError.aspx wrote: Shim will become quite complicated due

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Shim vs Agent Refactor

2014-07-10 Thread Brandon Logan
, but is not usable for many deployments. -Dustin On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.commailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote: Okay so after talking to Kyle, we've decided to forego creating a new version of the agent right away and just creating a new haproxy driver

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Last Two Reviews In Gerrit for V2 API

2014-07-18 Thread Brandon Logan
These implement the Haproxy driver without an agent. It's a WIP right now until tests are complete and a few more issues are resolved, but its functional for the most part. We split it up into two reviews: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/108173/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/108174/ If

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Update on specs we needed approved

2014-07-21 Thread Brandon Logan
In reference to these 3 specs: TLS Termination - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98640/ L7 Switching - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/99709/ Implementing TLS in reference Impl - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100931/ Kyle has +2'ed all three and once Mark Mcclain +2's them then one of them

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - certificates data persistency

2014-07-22 Thread Brandon Logan
I agree with Sam. We're under a strict timeline here and the simpler the code the faster it will be implemented and reviewed. Is there any strong reason why this caching can't wait until K if it decided it is really needed? Thanks, Brandon On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 11:01 +, Samuel Bercovici

Re: [openstack-dev] FW: [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - work division

2014-07-23 Thread Brandon Logan
@Evgeny: Did you intend on adding another patchset in the reviews I've been working on? If so I don't really see any changes, so if they're are some changes you needed in there let me know. @Doug: I think if the drivers see the TERMINATED_HTTPS protocol then they can throw an exception. I don't

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Tempest] LBaaS V2 testing, partial results

2014-07-27 Thread Brandon Logan
Hey Miguel! Thanks for doing this. I'll look into the pool issue ASAP and get back to you. Thanks, Brandon On Sun, 2014-07-27 at 19:24 -0500, Miguel Lavalle wrote: Hi, I spent a few hours deploying LBaaS V2 to my devstack instance and tested it with the Tempest api test developed a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Tempest] LBaaS V2 testing, partial results

2014-07-27 Thread Brandon Logan
Hey Miguel, I just tried to reproduce what you got but couldn't. Have you pulled down code recently? I believe new code hit on Friday that probably fixed the issue you encountered. Let me know. Thanks, Brandon On Sun, 2014-07-27 at 19:24 -0500, Miguel Lavalle wrote: Hi, I spent a few

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

2014-07-28 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

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

2014-07-28 Thread Brandon Logan
a more complete feature set, or admit this thing needs to be experimental/not the default, and give a little more attention to giving support to the default. Thanks, doug On 7/28/14, 12:42 AM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote: There is going to be a mad rush to get

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Managing change in gerrit which depends on multiple other changes in review

2014-07-29 Thread Brandon Logan
Hi Evgeny and Doug, So the thing to keep in mind is that Gerrit determines a new review by the change-id in the commit message. It then determines patch sets by the commit hashes. This is my understanding of it at least. A commit's hash gets changed on many actions such as cherry-picks,

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] API confusion

2014-08-01 Thread Brandon Logan
Hi Mike, So that looks like those docs are for the v2 LBaaS API. The CLI changes for v2 are not in yet, and the v2 API implementation code is in review right now. I am a bit worried that I do not see the v1 docs anymore because v1 will still remain until its deprecated. In fact, I'm pretty sure

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Tempest] LBaaS API Tempest testing status update

2014-08-04 Thread Brandon Logan
Hey Miguel, I was able to reproduce the issue here and luckily it was an error in the driver. So that means I don't need to update the plugin. I fixed the issue in the driver, and pushed the change up. Everything should be working now. Thanks, Brandon On Sun, 2014-08-03 at 20:42 -0500, Miguel

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] status in entities

2014-08-05 Thread Brandon Logan
Hello Vijay! Well this is a hold over from v1, but the status is a provisioning status. So yes, when something is deployed successfully it should be ACTIVE. The exception to this is the member status, in that it's status can be INACTIVE if a health check fails. Now this will probably cause

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] status in entities

2014-08-05 Thread Brandon Logan
high bandwith to work all of that out. German -Original Message- From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 8:27 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] status in entities Hello

Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Weekly meetings resuming + agenda

2014-08-06 Thread Brandon Logan
When is the plan to move the meeting to IRC? On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 15:30 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote: Action items from today's Octavia meeting: 1. We're going to hold off for a couple days on merging the constitution and preliminary road map to give people (and in particular Ebay) a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API revision progress

2014-04-15 Thread Brandon Logan
apart and come up with how it may break use cases and also how it may break the rule of it being too specific. We're definitely keeping all of that in mind but different experienced sets of eyes will always come up with some flaws and things we didn't think about. Thanks, Brandon Logan

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API revision progress

2014-04-16 Thread Brandon Logan
that this would not support. There is a CLI example at the bottom along with a possible L7 switching API model. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mTfkkdnPAd4tWOMZAdwHEx7IuFZDULjG9bTmWyXe-zo/edit Thanks, Brandon Logan From: Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.commailto:enikano...@mirantis.com

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API revision progress

2014-04-16 Thread Brandon Logan
and API revision progress Hi Brandon, Seems that doc has not been made public, so please share. Thanks, Eugene. On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.commailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote: Here is Jorge and team’s API proposal based on Atlas. The document

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API revision progress

2014-04-16 Thread Brandon Logan
its a huge document and some things are probably not detailed well. If they are not just ask me to give more details. Thanks, Brandon Logan From: Eugene Nikanorov [enikano...@mirantis.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:31 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaas] Single call API discussion

2014-04-17 Thread Brandon Logan
Stephen, I have responded to your questions below. On 04/17/2014 01:02 PM, Stephen Balukoff wrote: Howdy folks! Based on this morning's IRC meeting, it seems to me there's some contention and confusion over the need for single call functionality for load balanced services in the new API

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API revision progress

2014-04-17 Thread Brandon Logan
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote: You say 'only one port and protocol per load balancer', yet I don't know how this works. Could you define what a 'load balancer' is in this case? (port and protocol

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaas] Single call API discussion

2014-04-17 Thread Brandon Logan
Hello again Stephen, As usual, responses in-line! On 04/17/2014 08:39 PM, Stephen Balukoff wrote: Hello German and Brandon! Responses in-line: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote: Stephen, I have

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API revision progress

2014-04-17 Thread Brandon Logan
week's meeting, and which I'm anticipating won't be the final form this API revision takes anyway.) Thanks, Stephen There are only two truly difficult problems in computer science: Naming things, cache invalidation, and off-by-one errors. On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Brandon Logan

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaas] Single call API discussion

2014-04-21 Thread Brandon Logan
Hello Eugene! Are you talking about seeing the code in a simplified approach for a single create call using the current API objects, or one that uses objects created based on the proposal? I was experimenting over the weekend on getting a single create call in the current API model. I was able

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] BBG edit of new API proposal

2014-04-23 Thread Brandon Logan
Hey Stephen! Thanks for the proposal and spending time on it (I know it is a large time investment). This is actually very similar in structure to something I had started on except a load balancer object was the root and it had a one-to-many relationship to VIPs and each VIP had a

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] API and Object Model Direction

2014-04-27 Thread Brandon Logan
I'm making a new thread continuing from [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] BBG edit of new API proposal I think this warrants its own thread since the discussion doesn't pertain directly to Stephen's proposal. Eugene, What I think what Stephen is trying to say is that in the previous IRC meeting

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Thoughts on current process

2014-05-01 Thread Brandon Logan
Hi Eugene, On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 00:10 +0400, Eugene Nikanorov wrote: Hi, On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Jorge Miramontes jorge.miramon...@rackspace.com wrote: Hey Eugene, I think there is a misunderstanding on what iterative development

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Multiple VIPs per loadbalancer

2014-05-09 Thread Brandon Logan
Yes, Rackspace has users that have multiple IPv4 and IPv6 VIPs on a single load balancer. However, I don't think it is a matter of it being needed. It's a matter of having an API that makes sense to a user. Just because the API has multiple VIPs doesn't mean every VIP needs its own port. In

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] API proposal review thoughts

2014-05-10 Thread Brandon Logan
Hi Sam, I do not have access to those statistics. Though, I can say that with our current networking infrastructure customers that have multiple IPv4 or multiple IPv6 VIPs are in the minority. However, we have received feature requests on allowing VIPs on our two main networks (public and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Multiple VIPs per loadbalancer

2014-05-10 Thread Brandon Logan
on. This reason alone should be enough to revisit the topic with the core team members so we operators can fully understand their objections. I believe operators should play a large role in Openstack and their opinions and reasons why should be heard. Thanks, Brandon Logan On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 10:52

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] API proposal review thoughts

2014-05-10 Thread Brandon Logan
and object model in neutron V3? I thought that was still on the table, and its the perfect time to create a new load balancer API, backwards compatibility is not expected. I'd also like to ask why it seems to not matter at all if most (if not all) operators like an API proposal? Thanks, Brandon

  1   2   3   >