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

2014-08-11 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi folks, That actually going in opposite direction to what flavor framework is trying to do (and for dispatching it's doing the same as providers). REST call dispatching should really go via the root object. I don't quite get the issue with health monitors. If HM is incorrectly configured prior

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

2014-08-11 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
. The driver errors out not on the LoadBalancer create, but on the health monitor create. I think that's the issue. Thanks, Brandon On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 00:17 +0400, Eugene Nikanorov wrote: Hi folks, That actually going in opposite direction to what flavor framework is trying to do

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Allowing specifying object ID in create_* API

2014-09-16 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi neutrons, We've been discussing various ways of doing cloud upgrades. One of the safe and viable solutions seems to be moving existing resources to a new cloud deployed with new version of openstack. By saying 'moving' I mean replication of all resources and wiring everything together in a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [LBaaS] Packet flow between instances using a load balancer

2014-09-19 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
If we're talking about default haproxy driver for lbaas, then I'd say that the diagram is not quite correct because one could assume that LB_A and LB_B are kind of routing devices which have networks behind. Since haproxy is layer 4 loadbalancer, so packet received by RHB1 will have source of

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

2014-09-23 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi neutron and lbaas folks. Recently I briefly looked at one of lbaas proposed into feature branch. I see migration IDs there are lined into a general migration sequence. I think something is definitely wrong with this approach as feature-branch components are optional, and also master branch

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Loadbalancer instance

2013-12-10 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi Neutron and LBaaS folks, Initial version of blueprint lbaas-service-instance is on review: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/60207/ This patch is one of few major features that we've planned for LBaaS in Icehouse and is a basis for other important features like L7 rules, multiple vips/pools.

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Weekly subteam meeting at Thursday, 12.12, 14-00 UTC

2013-12-11 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi lbaas folks, Let's meet as usual at #openstack-meeting on Thursday, 12 at 14-00 UTC. The primary discussion points should be: 1) Third party testing 2) L7 rules 3) Loadbalancer instance 4) HA for agents and HA for HAProxy Thanks, Eugene. ___

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][lbaas] plugin driver

2013-12-19 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi Subrahmanyam, The patch was originally implemented by Oleg Bondarev :) plugin-driver appears to be specific to driver provider That's correct How does this work with single common agent and many providers? The idea is that the plugin-driver is server-side logic which defines how

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Weekly subteam meeting at Thursday, 19.12, 14-00 UTC

2013-12-19 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi lbaas folks, Let's meet as usual at #openstack-meeting on Thursday, 19 at 14-00 UTC. The primary discussion points should be: 1) Third party testing, test scenarios 2) L7 rules 3) HA for agents and HA for HAProxy 4) SSL termination Thanks, Eugene

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][external networks] neutron net-external-list returns empty list after restart of neutron-server

2014-01-05 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi rezoo, This is a known bug for HAavana, which has been fixed (but was not backported), please see: https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1254555 Thanks, Eugene. On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 1:25 AM, rezroo r...@dslextreme.com wrote: Hi all, I'm testing the Havana devstack and I noticed that

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][external networks] neutron net-external-list returns empty list after restart of neutron-server

2014-01-06 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
, Eugene Nikanorov wrote: Hi rezoo, This is a known bug for HAavana, which has been fixed (but was not backported), please see: https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1254555 Thanks, Eugene. On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 1:25 AM, rezroo r...@dslextreme.com wrote: Hi all, I'm testing

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Multiple config files for neutron server

2014-01-06 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi folks, Recently we had a discussion with Sean Dague on the matter. Currently Neutron server has a number of configuration files used for different purposes: - neutron.conf - main configuration parameters, plugins, db and mq connections - plugin.ini - plugin-specific networking settings -

Re: [openstack-dev] Tempest Testcases for ML2 Mechanism drivers - Help

2014-01-08 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Trinath, Tempest tests should be backend-agnostic, so specific tests for your mechanism driver is not needed. You need specific testing environment for that which will run tempest tests against a deployment with mechanism drivers you want to test. See also:

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Weekly meeting Thursday 09.01.2014

2014-01-08 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi neutrons, Lets continue keeping our regular lbaas meetings. Let's gather on #openstack-meeting at 14-00 UTC on this Thursday, 09.01.2014. We'll discuss our progress and future plans. Thanks, Eugene. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][qa]API testing update

2014-01-09 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Sukhdev, API tests are really not for end-to-end testing; also, tempest tests (both API and scenario) should not make any assumptions about neutron configuration (e.g. ml2 mechanism drivers). End-to-end testing for particular ml2 drivers seems to fit in 3rd party testing where you can run

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] LBaaS subteam meeting 16.01.2014

2014-01-16 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi neutron and lbaas folks, Let's meet today on 14-00 UTC at #openstack-meeting It's been a while since we had a quorum in the meeting. There are a few items on out list that require a discussion: 0) Third party testing 1) SSL extension - vendor extension framework 2) L7 rules 3) Loadbalancer

Re: [openstack-dev] Top Gate Reseting issues that need attention

2014-01-20 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi Sean, I think the following 2 commits in neutron are essential for bringing neutron jobs back to acceptable level of failure rate: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/67537/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/66670/ Thanks, Eugene. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Status update and weekly meeting

2014-01-22 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi folks, At this point we have a few major action items, mostly patches on review. Please note that the gate is in pretty bad shape, so don't expect anything to be approved/merged until this is sorted out. 1) SSL extension https://review.openstack.org/#/c/63510/ The code here is in a good shape

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Securing RPC channel between the server and the agent

2014-01-27 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi folks, As we are going to add ssl implementation to lbaas which would be based on well-known haproxy+stunnel combination, there is one problem that we need to solve: securing communication channel between neutron-server and the agent. I see several approaches here: 1) Rely on secure messaging

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] LBaaS subteam meeting 30.01.2014 14-00 UTC

2014-01-30 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi neutrons, Let's keep our usual weekly meeting at #openstack-meeting at 14-00 UTC We'll discuss current status of main features on Icehouse agenda: - SSL - LB instance - L7 rules Meeting page: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/LBaaS Thanks, Eugene.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Securing RPC channel between the server and the agent

2014-01-30 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi Russel, Thank for your input. I'll look into that. Thanks, Eugene. On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote: On 01/27/2014 09:37 AM, Eugene Nikanorov wrote: Hi folks, As we are going to add ssl implementation to lbaas which would be based on well

Re: [openstack-dev] [savanna] Alembic migrations and absence of DROP column in sqlite

2014-02-01 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Boris, Sorry for the offtopic. Is switching to model-based schema generation is something decided? I see the opposite: attempts to drop schema generation based on models in favor of migrations. Can you point to some discussion threads? Thanks, Eugene. On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Boris

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Weekly meeting 06.02.2014

2014-02-06 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi, Let's discuss lbaas progress and plans in #openstack-meetings 14-00 UTC today. Meeting agenda: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/LBaaS Thanks, Eugene. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Interest in discussing vendor plugins for L3 services?

2014-02-12 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
I'd be interested too. Thanks, Eugene. On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Carl Baldwin c...@ecbaldwin.net wrote: Paul, I'm interesting in joining the discussion. UTC-7. Any word on when this will take place? Carl On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Paul Michali p...@cisco.com wrote: I'd

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Subteam meeting 13.02.2014 at 14-00UTC

2014-02-12 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi folks, Lets gather as usual on #openstack-meeting on Thursday, 13 at 14-00 UTC The updated agenda for our regular meeting is here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/LBaaS In addition to that I'd like to discuss some ideas that Stephen Balukoff has proposed. Thanks, Eugene.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Proposal for model change - Loadbalancer Instance feedback

2014-02-13 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi Stephen, Please see my comments inline. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Stephen Balukoff sbaluk...@bluebox.netwrote: Hi y'all! I've been reading through the LoadBalancerInsance description as outlined here and have some feedback:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Proposal for model change - Multiple services per floating IP

2014-02-13 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi, see my comments inline: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:11 AM, Stephen Balukoff sbaluk...@bluebox.netwrote: Is this blueprint not yet implemented? When I attempt to create multiple VIPs using the same IP in my test cluster, I get: sbalukoff@testbox:~$ neutron lb-vip-create --name

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Proposal for model change - Multiple services per floating IP

2014-02-15 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
tenants from accidentally sharing an IP if we stick with the current model? Stephen On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com wrote: So we have some constraints here because of existing haproxy driver impl, the particular reason is that VIP created

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] L7 - Update L7Policy

2014-02-17 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi Avishay, 1) I think name might be useful. Consider user forms a list of rules which route requests to a pool with static images or static pages, it may make sense to give those policy a name 'static-iamges', 'static-pages', rather then operate on ids. 2) I think updating the name is useful as

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] L7 - Update L7Policy

2014-02-17 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
*To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] L7 - Update L7Policy Hi, On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Avishay, 1) I think name might be useful. Consider user forms a list

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

2014-02-18 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi folks, Recently we were discussing LBaaS object model with Mark McClain in order to address several problems that we faced while approaching L7 rules and multiple vips per pool. To cut long story short: with existing workflow and model it's impossible to use L7 rules, because each pool being

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] L7 - Update L7Policy

2014-02-18 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi folks, I see little value in being able to debug such things because it is for developers only. However given that such choice doesn't affect workflow and public API, we can add corresponding calls to the driver API. Thanks, Eugene. On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Stephen Balukoff

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

2014-02-18 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
to provide the .dot files for any of the above graphs. Thoughts? Thanks, Stephen On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi folks, Recently we were discussing LBaaS object model with Mark McClain in order to address several problems that we faced

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

2014-02-19 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi Sam, My comments inline: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Samuel Bercovici samu...@radware.comwrote: Hi, I think we mix different aspects of operations. And try to solve a non problem. Not really, Advanced features we're trying to introduce are incompatible by both object model and

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Subteam meeting 20.02.2014 at 1400 UTC

2014-02-19 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi neutron folks and everyone interested in LBaaS, Let's meet as usual on #openstack-meeting at 14-00 UTC. The meeting agenda will be mostly around schema change. Please look over ML discussion and this link: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/LoadbalancerInstance/Discussion

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

2014-02-20 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi Iwamoto, I agree with Samuel here. I feel the logical model and other issues (implementation etc.) are mixed in the discussion. A little bit. While ideally it's better to separate it, in my opinion we need to have some 'fair bit' of implementation details in API in order to reduce code

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

2014-02-21 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
, Eugene. On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 15:21 +0400, Eugene Nikanorov wrote: I agree with Samuel here. I feel the logical model and other issues (implementation etc.) are mixed in the discussion

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

2014-02-21 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Could you provide some examples -- even in the pseudo-CLI commands like I did below. It's really difficult to understand where the limits are without specific examples. You know, I always look at the API proposal from implementation standpoint also, so here's what I see. In the cli workflow

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

2014-02-24 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Mark, I'm not sure I understand what are implementation details in the workflow I have proposed in the email above, could you point to them? Thanks, Eugene. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Mark McClain mmccl...@yahoo-inc.comwrote: On Feb 21, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

2014-02-24 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Folks, So far everyone agrees that the model should be pure logical, but no one came up with the API and meaningful implementation details (at least at idea level) of such obj model. As I've pointed out, 'pure logical' object model has some API and user experience inconsistencies that we need to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Feedback on SSL implementation

2014-02-24 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi, Barbican is the storage option we're considering, however it seems that there's not much progress with incubation of it. Another week point of our current state is a lack of secure communication between neutron server and the agent, but that is solvable. Thanks, Eugene. On Fri, Feb 21,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

2014-02-24 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks, Eugene! I've given the API a bit of thought today and jotted down some thoughts below. On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 23:57 +0400, Eugene Nikanorov wrote: Could you provide some examples -- even in the pseudo-CLI commands like I did below. It's really

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

2014-02-25 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi Stephen, My comments inline: On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Stephen Balukoff sbaluk...@bluebox.netwrote: Hi y'all, Jay, in the L7 example you give, it looks like you're setting SSL parameters for a given load balancer front-end. Do you have an example you can share where where

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

2014-02-26 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
A couple of notes: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: neutron l7-policy-create --type=uri-regex-matching \ --attr=URIRegex=static\.example\.com.* Presume above returns an ID for the policy $L7_POLICY_ID. We could then assign that policy to operate on

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Significance of subnet_id for LBaaS Pool

2014-02-26 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi, I assume then the validation in horizon to force the VIP ip from this pool subnet is incorrect. i.e VIP address can be from a different subnet. Right, existing horizon code is bound to reference LBaaS implementation. Thanks, Eugene. ___

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

2014-02-26 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi Sam, I've looked over the document, couple of notes: 1) In order to allow real multiple 'vips' per pool feature, we need the listener concept. It's not just a different tcp port, but also a protocol, so session persistence and all ssl-related parameters should move to listener. 2)

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Flavor Framework

2014-02-26 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi neutron folks, I know that there are patches on gerrit for VPN, FWaaS and L3 services that are leveraging Provider Framework. Recently we've been discussing more comprehensive approach that will allow user to choose service capabilities rather than vendor or provider. I've started creating

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

2014-02-26 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
-create à$POOL-1 lb-vip-create .$VIP_ADDRESS,$TCP_PORT, default_pool=$POOL-1... à $VIP-1 lb-vip-create .$VIP_ADDRESS,$TCP_PORT, default_pool=$POOL-1... à $VIP-2 Youcef *From:* Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:26

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

2014-02-27 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
=$POOL-1... à $VIP-2 Youcef *From:* Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:26 PM *To:* Samuel Bercovici *Cc:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

2014-02-27 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
I see IP address sharing as user intent, not an implementation detail. Same backend could be not only the only obstacle here. The backend is not exposed anyhow by the API, by the way. When you create root object with flavor - you really can't control to which driver it will be scheduled.

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Weekly meeting

2014-02-27 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Thanks everyone for joining, meeting logs: openstack Meeting ended Thu Feb 27 15:00:42 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) openstack Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/neutron_lbaas/2014/neutron_lbaas.2014-02-27-14.00.html openstack

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Flavor Framework

2014-02-27 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi Jay, Thanks for looking into this. 1) I'm not entirely sure that a provider attribute is even necessary to expose in any API. What is important is for a scheduler to know which drivers are capable of servicing a set of attributes that are grouped into a flavor. Well, provider becomes

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Flavor Framework

2014-02-28 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
think it is not something we need worry about. It's totally operator's decision of how to rate different drivers? Thanks, Gary On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Jay, Thanks for looking into this. 1) I'm not entirely sure that a provider

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Flavor Framework

2014-03-04 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
. · Tenant creates a vip the requires adc-for-testing. Regards, -Sam. *From:* Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com] *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:12 AM *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List *Subject:* [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Flavor Framework

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Weekly meeting object model discussion IMPORTANT

2014-03-05 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi neutron lbaas folks, Let's meet tomorrow, Thursday, 06 at 14-00 on #openstack-meeting to continue discussing the object model. We had discussed with Samuel Bercovici proposals at hand and currently there are two main proposals that we are evaluating. Both of them allow to add two major

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Health monitoring and statistics for complex LB configurations.

2014-03-05 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi community, Another interesting questions were raised during object model discussion about how pool statistics and health monitoring should be used in case of multiple vips sharing one pool. Right now we can query statistics for the pool, and some data like in/out bytes and request count will

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Mini-summit Interest?

2014-03-06 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
If this happens, it might make sense to keep it before, not after the summit. Basically, on the summit we need to come up with a plan/design/roadmap that everyone agrees on and just present it to the core team. Thanks, Eugene. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:08 PM, John Dewey j...@dewey.ws wrote:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Mini-summit Interest?

2014-03-07 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
I think mini summit is no worse than the summit itself. Everyone who wants to participate can join. In fact what we really need is a certain time span of focused work. ML, meetings are ok, it's just that dedicated in person meetings (design sessions) could be more productive. I'm thinking what if

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Mini-summit Interest?

2014-03-10 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi Edgar, I'm neutral to the suggestion of mini summit at this point. Why do you think it will exclude developers? If we keep it 1-3 days prior to OS Summit in Atlanta (e.g. in the same city) that would allow anyone who joins OS Summit to save on extra travelling. OS Summit itself is too

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Subteam meeting Thursday, 14-00 UTC

2014-03-12 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi neutron and lbaas folks, Let's keep our regular meeting on Thursday, at 14-00 UTC at #openstack-meeting We'll update on current status and continue object model discussion. We have many new folks that are recently showed the interest in lbaas project asking for mini summit. I think it would

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Subteam meeting Thursday, 14-00 UTC

2014-03-14 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
? Will look for the meeting summary Regards, -Sam. *From:* Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:21 PM *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List *Subject:* [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Subteam meeting Thursday, 14

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Advanced Services Common requirements IRC meeting

2014-03-15 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
, it's always a result of scheduling, e.g. readonly. Thanks, Eugene. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.comwrote: Here is a summary from yesterday's meeting: ** Flavors (topic lead: Eugene Nikanorov) * Hide the provider implementation details from

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][FWaaS][VPN] Admin status vs operational status

2014-03-17 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi folks, We've been discussing a patch that fixes https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1242351 and came to a conclusion that what we have right now as an operational status (status attribute of the resource) may be confusing for a user. This attribute is used to show deployment status and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][FWaaS][VPN] Admin status vs operational status

2014-03-17 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi Kyle, It's a typical use case for network devices to have both admin and operational state. In the case of having admin_state=DOWN and operational_state=ACTIVE, this just means the port/link is active but has been configured down. Isn't this the same for LBaaS here? Even reading the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][FWaaS][VPN] Admin status vs operational status

2014-03-17 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
those bugs. Thanks, Eugene. On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Paul Michali p...@cisco.com wrote: On Mar 17, 2014, at 8:26 AM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi folks, We've been discussing a patch that fixes https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1242351 and came

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][FWaaS][VPN] Admin status vs operational status

2014-03-17 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
into DEPLOYED instead? We can't just rename the ACTIVE to DEPLOYED, and may be the latter is not the best name, but yes, that's the intent. Thanks, Eugene. On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@noironetworks.comwrote: On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][FWaaS][VPN] Admin status vs operational status

2014-03-17 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
/documentation:archives:rel2.0:api [5] http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/APIReference/API-ItemTypes.html On 17 March 2014 17:16, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com wrote: Seems awkward to me, if an IPSec connection has a status of ACTIVE, but an admin state of ADMIN DOWN. Right

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Subteam meeting Thursday, 14-00 UTC

2014-03-19 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi neutron and lbaas folks, Let's keep our regular meeting on Thursday, at 14-00 UTC at #openstack-meeting Jorge Miramontes has made a nice wiki page capturing service requirements: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/requirements Please check it out as this will help us to get on the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements Wiki

2014-03-19 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi Jorge, Thanks for taking care of the page. I've added priorities, although I'm not sure we need precise priority weights. Those features that still have '?' need further clarification. Thanks, Eugene. On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.comwrote: Hi Jorge,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements Wiki

2014-03-20 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
balancer by blacklisting/whitelisting cidr blocks and even individual ip addresses. This is just a basic security feature. Cheers, --Jorge *From: *Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com *Reply-To: *OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements Wiki

2014-03-20 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
- Active/Passive Failover - I think this is solved with multiple pools. The multiple pools support that is coming with L7 rules is to support content-switching based on L7 HTTP information (URL, headers, etc.). There is no support today for an active vs. passive pool. I'm not

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements Wiki

2014-03-20 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
primary nodes go down then secondary nodes become active. Cheers, --Jorge From: Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Thursday, March 20, 2014 11:35 AM To: OpenStack

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Glossary

2014-03-24 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi, Here's the wiki page with a list of terms we're usually operate when discussing lbaas object model: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/Glossary Feel free to add/modify/ask questions. Thanks, Eugene. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list

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

2014-03-24 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi Susanne, a couple of comments inline: We would like to discuss adding the concept of managed services to the Neutron LBaaS either directly or via a Neutron LBaaS plug-in to Libra/HA proxy. The latter could be a second approach for some of the software load-balancers e.g. HA proxy

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

2014-03-24 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi, HAProxy driver has not removed from the trunk, instead it became a base for agent-based driver, so the only haproxy-specific thing in the plugin driver is device driver name. Namespace driver is a device driver on the agent side and it was there from the beginning. The reason for the change

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

2014-03-25 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
, March 24, 2014 4:59 PM *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Neutron LBaaS, Libra and managed services Eugene, Thanks for your comments, See inline: Susanne On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Eugene Nikanorov

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

2014-03-25 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi John, On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:26 AM, John Dewey j...@dewey.ws wrote: I have a similar concern. The underlying driver may support different functionality, but the differentiators need exposed through the top level API. Not really, whole point of the service is to abstract the user

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

2014-03-26 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
(not for usage questions) *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Neutron LBaaS, Libra and managed services Eugene, Thanks for your comments, See inline: Susanne On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Susanne, a couple of comments

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Weekly LBaaS meeting

2014-03-26 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi folks, Lets keep our regular meetings. Th next one on Thursday, 27, at 14-00 UTC. The agenda for the meeting: 1) Object model discussion update 2) Requirements glossary QA 3) Open discussion Thanks, Eugene. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Flavor framework PoC code

2014-03-26 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi folks, I've made a small patch set to illustrate the idea and usage of flavors as I see it. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/83055/ I think gerrit can be a good place to discuss important implementation details on a given example service plugin, take a look at test_flavors.py file where it

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] [neutron] Neutron Full Parallel job - Last 4 days failures

2014-03-29 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Bug 1294603 has the root cause in LBaaS, which should be fixed by https://review.openstack.org/#/c/81537/ Thanks, Eugene. On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.comwrote: On 3/27/2014 8:00 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote: On 26 March 2014 19:19, James E. Blair

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Load balancing use cases. Data from Operators needed.

2014-04-01 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi folks, On the last meeting we decided to collect usage data so we could prioritize features and see what is demanded most. Here's the blank page to do that (in a free form). I'll structure it once we have some data. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/Usecases Please fill with the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Load balancing use cases. Data from Operators needed.

2014-04-02 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
. I am still working on our HA use cases. Susanne On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Fox, Kevin M kevin@pnnl.gov wrote: I added our priorities. I hope its formatted well enough. I just took a stab in the dark. Thanks, Kevin -- *From:* Eugene Nikanorov

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][Nova][Tempest][Devstack] Change in default security group settings?

2014-04-03 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi devs, While working of one of tempest scenario tests I've found out that the code that spawns VM and access it on 80 port stopped working due security group rule allowing ingress for 80 port is not there. I'm saying 'stopped working' because previously it worked fine without any additional

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][Nova][Tempest][Devstack] Change in default security group settings?

2014-04-03 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
://review.openstack.org/#/c/83190/ -- Kevin Benton On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi devs, While working of one of tempest scenario tests I've found out that the code that spawns VM and access it on 80 port stopped working due security

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Load balancing use cases and web ui screen captures

2014-04-07 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi Sam, I find google doc a little bit too heavy for ML discussion. So I'd like to extract the gist of the overall use case that we want to use when discussing an API (for ex, single-call API). Here it is as I see it (Sam, correct me if I'm wrong): User wants to setup web application that is

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] VPNaaS questions

2013-10-12 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi folks, I was wondering in general how providers can customize service features, based on their capabilities (better or worse than reference). I could create a Summit session topic on this, but wanted to know if this is something that has already been addressed or if a different

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] LBaaS plans for Icehouse

2013-10-23 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi Neutron folks! We're going to have an IRC meeting where we will discuss development plans for LBaaS in Icehouse. Currently I'm proposing to meet on Thursday, 24 at 8:00 PDT on freenode #neutron-lbaas channel. Agenda for the meeting: 1. New features for lbaas in Icehouse Pretty much

Re: [openstack-dev] Testing before sending for review

2013-10-23 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi, 1. It's not necessary to abandon your patch if it has failed jenkins tests. 2. Before submitting the new patch for review it's better to run unit tests (tox -epy27) and pep8 check (tox -epep8) Integration testing is being done by check-tempest-devstack-vm-neutron* suites and some of them fail

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] LBaaS plans for Icehouse

2013-10-23 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
. ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *From:* Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:51 AM *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List *Subject:* [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] LBaaS plans for Icehouse ** ** Hi Neutron folks

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] LBaaS plans for Icehouse

2013-10-23 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
So currently it moves to 10AM PDT Thanks, Eugene. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.comwrote: So is it at 8 AM PDT, or 10 AM PDT? Thanks, ~Sumit. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Sam, Yes, I

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Thursday meeting follow-up

2013-10-25 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi folks, Thanks to everyone who joined the meeting on Thursday. We've discussed desired features and changes in LBaaS service and identified dependencies between them. You can find them on etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-icehouse-lbaas Most of the features are also captured

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object status and admin_state_up

2013-10-29 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi folks, Currently there are two attributes of vips/pools/members that represent a status: 'status' and 'admin_state_up'. The first one is used to represent deployment status and can be PENDING_CREATE, ACTIVE, PENDING_DELETE, ERROR. We also have admin_state_up which could be True or False. I'd

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object status and admin_state_up

2013-10-29 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
. So I am not sure we can come to a generic solution in the lbaas core code. Thanks Avishay ** ** *From:* Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2013 11:19 AM *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List *Subject:* [openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object status and admin_state_up

2013-10-31 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
to PENDING_UPDATE, when the driver implements this than the status with be back to being ACTIVE. The Term ACTIVE, might be wrong in that it might be renamed to something like APPLIED. ** ** Regards, -Sam. ** ** ** ** ** ** *From:* Eugene Nikanorov

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack][Neutron] Server restart failes when configured with ML2 (BugID: 1210236)

2013-11-05 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
That kind of error indicates that some ml2 driver or ml2 plugin failed to load. You need to inspect neutron server log prior to the trace you are posting, it should contain specific about the issue. Thanks, Eugene. On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Ben Nemec openst...@nemebean.com wrote:

Re: [openstack-dev] Bad review patterns

2013-11-06 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi! I would like do disagree with some of the points. First of all, '-1' mark may have a wrong perception especially among new contributors. -1 doesn't mean reviewers don't want your code (which is -2), it means they either not sure it is good enough or they see how you could make it better.

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] LBaaS Subteam meeting

2013-11-12 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Hi neutron and lbaas folks! We have a plenty of work to do for the Icehouse, so I suggest we start having regular weekly meetings to track our progress. Let's meet at #neutron-lbaas on Thursday, 14 at 15-00 UTC The agenda for the meeting is the following: 1. Blueprint list to be proposed for the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] LBaaS Subteam meeting

2013-11-12 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
is not up-to-date. The time is 1400UTC and the channel is #openstack-meeting. I saw someone asked is there LBaaS meeting today? on #openstack-meeting channel several times. Thanks, Akihiro On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi neutron and lbaas

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] LBaaS subteam meeting Thursday, 14, at 14-00 UTC

2013-11-13 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
, -Sam. On Nov 12, 2013, at 9:30 PM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi folks, LBaaS subteam meeting will be held on Thursday, 14 at 14-00 UTC on #openstack-meeting irc channel on freenode, as specified in https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings#LBaaS_meeting

  1   2   3   >