Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: FW: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

2014-08-08 Thread Prasad Vellanki
GBP is about networking policy and hence limited to networking constructs. It enhances the networking constructs. Since it follows more or less the plugin model, it is not in one monolithic module but fans out to the policy module and is done via extension. On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:45 PM,

Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: FW: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

2014-08-08 Thread Prasad Vellanki
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote: Adding the GBP extension to Neutron does not change the nature of the software architecture of Neutron making it more or less monolithic. I agree with this statement...partially: the way GBP was developed is in accordance

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][policy] Group-based Policy next steps

2014-09-05 Thread Prasad Vellanki
Sumit Thanks for initiating this and also good discussion today on the IRC. My thoughts are that it is important to make this available to potential users and customers as soon as possible so that we can get the necessary feedback. Considering that the neutron cores and community are battling

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][policy] Group-based Policy next steps

2014-09-06 Thread Prasad Vellanki
...', the final consensus might actually BE to use separate stackforge project for plugins anyways, and in that case we will have a head start ;-) Regards, Mandeep - On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Prasad Vellanki *prasad.vella...@oneconvergence.com* prasad.vella

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][policy] Policy-Rules discussions based on Dec.12 network policy meeting

2013-12-19 Thread Prasad Vellanki
On Dec 17, 2013 3:22 PM, Tim Hinrichs thinri...@vmware.com wrote: - Original Message - | From: Prasad Vellanki prasad.vella...@oneconvergence.com | To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org | Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 2

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][policy] Policy-Rules discussions based on Dec.12 network policy meeting

2013-12-19 Thread Prasad Vellanki
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Stephen Wong s3w...@midokura.com wrote: Hi Prasad, Thanks for the comments, please see responses inline. On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Prasad Vellanki prasad.vella...@oneconvergence.com wrote: Hi Please see inline On Sun, Dec 15, 2013

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat] Sofware Config progress

2014-01-08 Thread Prasad Vellanki
Clint Steve One scenario we are trying to see is whether and how Heat software-config enables deployment of images available from third party as virtual appliances, providing network, security or acceleration capabilities. The vendor in some cases might not allow rebuilding and/or may not

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat] Sofware Config progress

2014-01-13 Thread Prasad Vellanki
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com wrote: that Steve Thanks for detailed email. Apologize for the delayed response but we have been thinking about how does software config fit into configuring network and service function devices. I agree with you that in general it

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat] Sofware Config progress

2014-01-14 Thread Prasad Vellanki
to work without password prompting. But I do see that ansible and salt support username/password option. If this would not work, I agree that the best option is to make them support cfminit... thanks prasadv On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Prasad Vellanki prasad.vella...@oneconvergence.com wrote

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat] Sofware Config progress

2014-01-20 Thread Prasad Vellanki
Steve Clint That should work. We will look at implementing a resource that spins up a shortlived VM for bootstrapping a service VM and informing configuration server for further configuration. thanks prasadv On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com wrote: On 01/14/2014

Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] How to model resources in Heat

2014-01-30 Thread Prasad Vellanki
Zane Thanks for putting this together. This will guide us as we develop some resources in Heat. As chmouel said it would be great if this can be converted to blog article. thanks prasadv On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Chmouel Boudjnah chmo...@enovance.comwrote: Zane Bitter

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat] Sofware Config progress [for appliances]

2014-02-06 Thread Prasad Vellanki
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote: Excerpts from Mike Spreitzer's message of 2014-02-05 22:17:50 -0800: From: Prasad Vellanki prasad.vella...@oneconvergence.com To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: FW: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

2014-08-06 Thread Prasad Vellanki
Jay Doesnt the current plugin model in neutron work the way you are saying. We have a a core set of APIs that there is a reference model for and individual vendors have substituted plugins that enhance and sometimes replace networking component. GBP in that respect does not change. There is a

Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: FW: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

2014-08-06 Thread Prasad Vellanki
It seems like Option 1 would be preferable. User can use this right away. The code and to a large extent BP has gone through quite a bit of review already so it seems to me that there actually going lot less than usual. I dont see a whole of lot Con on this. Though there are still some issues

Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: FW: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

2014-08-06 Thread Prasad Vellanki
2014 17:34, Prasad Vellanki prasad.vella...@oneconvergence.com wrote: It seems like Option 1 would be preferable. User can use this right away. People choosing Option 1 may think that the shortest route may be the best, that said the drawback I identified is not to be dismissed either (and I

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack][nova][Neutron] Launch VM with multiple Ethernet interfaces with I.P. of single subnet.

2014-04-21 Thread Prasad Vellanki
Aaron One use case is that tenant would like to put all the servers in a single broadcast domain (thus single IP/subnet domain). The servers can include the 3 tier servers (web database and application server). Why would he do that - Because it is simpler. Then the tenant would like to put

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][group-based-policy] Should we revisit the priority of group-based policy?

2014-05-23 Thread Prasad Vellanki
Great to see the discussions on the ML. Mohammad - Good summary. I would like to make few points 1) The current GP API is tuned towards person deploying the application as opposed to the networking person. This is probably a better way as one starts to think about self service infrastructure