Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases
On 02/06/2015 09:14 PM, Marcos Garcia wrote:
It does look like that. However, the intent here is to allow
non-developer
members of a Telco provide the use cases they need to accomplish.
This way
the Telco WG can identify gaps and file a proper spec into each of the
OpenStack projects.
Indeed, what we're trying to do is help the non-developer members of
the group articulate their use cases and tease them out to a level
that is meaningful to someone who is not immersed in
telecommunications themselves. In this way we hope to in turn be
able to create meaningful specifications for the actual OpenStack
projects impacted.
It's possible that some of these will be truly cross-project and
therefore head to openstack-specs but initial indications seem to be
that most will either be specific to a project, or cross only a
couple of projects (e.g. nova and neutron) - I am sure someone will
come up with some more exceptions to this statement to prove me
wrong :).
Ok, I definitively out of telco business, and I indeed openstack
operator. My first question: what you want to do, what problems you
want to solve?
IMO most of the Telco's are asking Openstack developers to work in the
following big areas (the first 3 are basically Carrier Grade):
- Performance on the virtualization layer (NUMA, etc) - get
baremetal-like performance in big VM's
- QoS and capacity management - to get deterministic behavior, always
the same regardless of the load
- Reliability (via HA, duplicate systems, live-migration, etc) -
achieve 99'999% uptime,
- Management interfaces (OAM), compatible with their current OSS/BSS
systems (i.e. SNMP traps, usage metering for billing) - to don't
reinvent the wheel, they have other things to manage too (i.e. legacy)
Most of this sounds really interesting for any operators. May be except
of NUMA. Buy why telco want more performance? Few percent of loss for
manageability - most companies accept this.
HA is achievable, QoS may be, duplication is ok. But of deterministic
live migrations... Why telco want it? If system have own way to
rebalance load, there is a more simple way: to terminate one instance
and to buid new. Btw I really want to see deterministic way to fight
with 'No valid hosts found'.
I was on one 'NVF' session in Paris, and I've expected it to be about
SR-IOV and using VF (virtual functions) of network cards for guest
acceleration. But instead it was something I just didn't got at all
(sorry, Ericsson). So, what are you want to do? Not in terms of
'business solution', but on very low level. Run some specific
appliance? Add VoIP support to Neutron? Make something differ?
It's all about SLA's stablished by telco's customers: government,
military and healthcare systems. SLA's are crazy there. And as an IT
operators, you'll all understand those requirements, so it's really
not that different compared to Telco operators.
Just remember that ETSI NFV is more than all that: you probably saw
Ericsson speaking about high-level telco functions: MANO, VIM, EMS and
VNFs, etc... that's beyond the scope of you guys, and probably outside
the scope of all of the Openstack world.. that's why OPNFV exists.
I will be a bit skeptic. It will not work with current quality of the
development process ('devstack syndrome'). I just done digging in yet
another funny nova 'half-bug' around migration and what I see in the
code is... to agile for high SLA systems. May be they (telcos) can
really change this, and I really hope, but up to now... Thousands of
loosly coupled systems with own bugs and world vision. Just today I
found 'hanged' network interface (any operation with netsocket goes to
'D' and can not be terminated) due ixgbe/netconsole bug. 99.99% in those
conditions? I just do not believe.
(https://www.mail-archive.com/e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg10178.html)
About Ericcson's presentation - yes, I was inspired by details of
previous Rackspace's presentation about depth of the shell/s
openvswitch, and suddenly all around starts to talk foreign language.
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
[Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ?
I am setting up a demo openstack environment to integrate with a switch stack for our organization. I was just curious if anyone had any preferences on low power / low cost small form factor embedded devices for running openstack compute nodes on? I was tempted to just use some beagle bones or something but the ram limitations do suck there. Was curious if anyone had any preferences on this front. -Matt ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ?
http://www.tranquilpcshop.co.uk/cluster/ orange box or milder looking black box, 10 NUCs and net. On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:54 PM, David Medberry openst...@medberry.net wrote: Hi guys, The Ubuntu Orange box also uses NUCs so seem to be a good choice. I believe there are a variety of good Small Form Factor AIO computers that will fill the bill but NUC is the best known. On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Will Snow (wasnow) was...@cisco.com wrote: I went with the 54250 version - and it's working great. --Will Snow was...@cisco.com Director, OpenStack Customer Engineering Mobile: +1-650-544-5460 From: matt m...@nycresistor.com Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:36 PM To: will snow was...@cisco.com Cc: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ? I was looking at the NUCs as well. I think I may go that route. On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Will Snow (wasnow) was...@cisco.com wrote: I've been building out a small cluster of intel NUC's and have been quite happy with them - reasonable performance, 16g ram, and usb3 if you need storage. Great little machines, make sure you update the firmware! We did a talk on the setup 2 summits ago, and we're looking to provide an update on using them at Vancouver --Will Snow was...@cisco.com Director, OpenStack Customer Engineering Mobile: +1-650-544-5460 From: matt m...@nycresistor.com Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:05 PM To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Subject: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ? I am setting up a demo openstack environment to integrate with a switch stack for our organization. I was just curious if anyone had any preferences on low power / low cost small form factor embedded devices for running openstack compute nodes on? I was tempted to just use some beagle bones or something but the ram limitations do suck there. Was curious if anyone had any preferences on this front. -Matt ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ?
I’ve been building out a small cluster of intel NUC’s and have been quite happy with them – reasonable performance, 16g ram, and usb3 if you need storage. Great little machines, make sure you update the firmware! We did a talk on the setup 2 summits ago, and we’re looking to provide an update on using them at Vancouver --Will Snow was...@cisco.com Director, OpenStack Customer Engineering Mobile: +1-650-544-5460 From: matt m...@nycresistor.commailto:m...@nycresistor.com Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:05 PM To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org openstack-operators@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Subject: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ? I am setting up a demo openstack environment to integrate with a switch stack for our organization. I was just curious if anyone had any preferences on low power / low cost small form factor embedded devices for running openstack compute nodes on? I was tempted to just use some beagle bones or something but the ram limitations do suck there. Was curious if anyone had any preferences on this front. -Matt ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ?
I was looking at the NUCs as well. I think I may go that route. On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Will Snow (wasnow) was...@cisco.com wrote: I’ve been building out a small cluster of intel NUC’s and have been quite happy with them – reasonable performance, 16g ram, and usb3 if you need storage. Great little machines, make sure you update the firmware! We did a talk on the setup 2 summits ago, and we’re looking to provide an update on using them at Vancouver --Will Snow was...@cisco.com Director, OpenStack Customer Engineering Mobile: +1-650-544-5460 From: matt m...@nycresistor.com Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:05 PM To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Subject: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ? I am setting up a demo openstack environment to integrate with a switch stack for our organization. I was just curious if anyone had any preferences on low power / low cost small form factor embedded devices for running openstack compute nodes on? I was tempted to just use some beagle bones or something but the ram limitations do suck there. Was curious if anyone had any preferences on this front. -Matt ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ?
Hi guys, The Ubuntu Orange box also uses NUCs so seem to be a good choice. I believe there are a variety of good Small Form Factor AIO computers that will fill the bill but NUC is the best known. On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Will Snow (wasnow) was...@cisco.com wrote: I went with the 54250 version - and it's working great. --Will Snow was...@cisco.com Director, OpenStack Customer Engineering Mobile: +1-650-544-5460 From: matt m...@nycresistor.com Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:36 PM To: will snow was...@cisco.com Cc: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ? I was looking at the NUCs as well. I think I may go that route. On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Will Snow (wasnow) was...@cisco.com wrote: I've been building out a small cluster of intel NUC's and have been quite happy with them - reasonable performance, 16g ram, and usb3 if you need storage. Great little machines, make sure you update the firmware! We did a talk on the setup 2 summits ago, and we're looking to provide an update on using them at Vancouver --Will Snow was...@cisco.com Director, OpenStack Customer Engineering Mobile: +1-650-544-5460 From: matt m...@nycresistor.com Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:05 PM To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Subject: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ? I am setting up a demo openstack environment to integrate with a switch stack for our organization. I was just curious if anyone had any preferences on low power / low cost small form factor embedded devices for running openstack compute nodes on? I was tempted to just use some beagle bones or something but the ram limitations do suck there. Was curious if anyone had any preferences on this front. -Matt ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
[Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases
Hello everyone, we are currently facing the issue that we don’t know how to proceed with our telco WG use cases. There are many of them already defined but the reviews via Etherpad doesn’t seem to work. I suggest to do a review on them with the usual OpenStack tooling. Therefore I uploaded one of them (Session Border Controller) to the Gerrit system into the sandbox repo: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/152940/1 I would really like to see how many review we can get on it. If this works out my idea is the following: - we create a project under Stackforge called telcowg-usecases - we link blueprint related to this use case - we build a core team and approve/prioritize them Regards Marc ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases
- Original Message - From: George Shuklin george.shuk...@gmail.com To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Sorry guys. I think most of the ops here have no idea what you talking about. Telcos is telcos, ops is ops. Different worlds, different problems, different terminology. Hi George, The telco working group is intended to bridge the gap between telcommunications operators and the openstack community, something we've been working on in some form since Atlanta. Once you boil away the TLAs many of their core requirements are not significantly different for what you might consider normal operators, or at least operators in other verticals like high performance computing. We primarily communicated on the -dev list prior to Paris but the feedback we got in the session there (on the operators track no less!) was that most people involved were more comfortable communicating in the context of the operators M/L than mixed in with the development traffic. If certain types of operators are not welcome in the openstack operators community then I think that would be a shame. Thanks, Steve ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
[Openstack-operators] OpenStack Community Weekly Newsletter (Jan 30 - Feb 6)
OpenStack L naming poll We'd like your help again in selecting the right name for the development cycle and release coming after Kilo. Our next summit will happen in Vancouver, BC (Canada) in May. L candidate names were proposed, selected and checked for various issues... leaving 4 candidates on the final public poll. Please take a moment to participate to our poll: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/openstack-l-naming Take these OpenStack Infrastructure tools and run! When you’ve got thousands of proposed patchsets, comments and test environments flooding in every day, you need the right tools to handle them. OpenStack created these free software tools to handle its burgeoning scale - here’s what they can do for you. How to craft a successful OpenStack Summit proposal The community has plenty to say: there were over 1,000 proposals for less than 200 talks at the Paris Summit in November 2014. For the upcoming Summit in Vancouver, there are 17 Summit tracks, from community building and security to hands-on labs. The deadline for proposals is February 9. Musings and Predictions from Superuser's Editorial Advisors We spoke to Superuser’s editorial advisory board to hear their perspectives on the Kilo release and what they’re looking forward to as the Vancouver Summit approaches in May. The Road to Vancouver * Call For Speakers open until February 9 – TWO MORE DAYS! * Applications for OpenStack Travel Support Program * Vancouver Summit Sponsorships Now Available * Canada Visa Information * Official Hotel Room Blocks * Next batch of invites to Kilo contributors will be sent after a new milestone is released Relevant Conversations * All About That Loop. Lessons from the OpenStack Product Mid-Cycle * Finding people to work on the EC2 API in Nova * do we really need project tags in the governance repository? * “Vanilla OpenStack” Doesn’t Exist and Never Will * The API WG mission statement Deadlines and Development Priorities * [cinder] Kilo Deadlines need to have a CI by end of K-3, March 19th 2015 * OpenStack 2014.2.2 released [Stable] * Kilo-2 development milestone available Reports From Previous Events * Big in Japan: OpenStack Days in Tokyo double in size * OpenStack Nova Mid-cycle Meetup, Day 3 Security Advisories and Notices * [OSSN 0043] glibc 'GHOST' vulnerability can allow remote code execution Tips ‘n Tricks * By Lars Kellogg-Stedman: Installing nova-docker in N easy steps and Filtering libvirt XML in Nova * By Tim Bell: Choosing the right image * By Craige McWhirter: Attaching Multiple Network Interfaces and Floating IPs to OpenStack Instances with Neutron * By Sébastien Han: OpenStack and Ceph: RBD discard Upcoming Events The 2015 events plan is now available on the Global Events Calendar wiki. * Feb 11, 2015 HandsOn Prescriptive Topology Mgr Mountain View, CA, US * Feb 11, 2015 CloudCamp Bangladesh @Digital World Dhaka, BD * Feb 18, 2015 First OpenStack BW Meetup Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg, DE * Feb 19 - 20, 2015 World Techies Forum Mumbai, Maharashtra, IN * Mar 04, 2015 OpenStack Finland meetup Helsinki, Uusimaa, FI * Mar 11 - 12, 2015 Cloud Expo Europe London, GB * Mar 26, 2015 PDX OpenStack Hackathon Portland, OR, US * Apr 08 - 16, 2015 PyCon 2015 Montreal, Quebec, CA * Apr 13 - 14, 2015 OpenStack Live Santa Clara, CA, US * Apr 21 - 22, 2015 CONNECT 2015 Melbourne, Victoria, AU * Apr 22 - 23, 2015 China SDNNFV Conference Beijing, CN * May 05 - 07, 2015 CeBIT AU 2015 Sydney, NSW, AU * May 18 - 22, 2015 OpenStack Summit May 2015 Vancouver, BC * Jun 11, 2015 OpenStack DACH Day 2015 Berlin, DE * Jul 20 - 24, 2015 OSCON 2015 Portland, OR, US * Aug 10 - 13, 2015 Gartner Catalyst Conference San Diego, CA, US * Sep 17, 2015 OpenStack Benelux Conference 2015 Bussum, NL * Oct 04 - 08, 2015 Gartner SymposiumITxpo Orlando, FL, US * Nov 15 - 20, 2015 Supercomputing 15 Austin, TX, US Other News * OpenStack Foundation 2014 Annual Report * Hypervisor support matrix now in GIT * Announcing 61 new infra puppet modules * New small project: stackquery-dashboard * What Do OpenStack Operators Do All Day? * Playing with QueueController * Ubuntu OpenStack Charms: 15.01 release * Python 3 is dead, long live Python 3 * What's Up Doc? Jan 30 2015 Got Answers? Ask OpenStack is the go-to destination for OpenStack users. Interesting questions waiting for answers: * Helion baremetal stuck on undercloud install - no valid host found * vpn service restarted in any tenant when add/updating/del ipsec connection - openstack juno 2014.2.1 * heat SoftwareDeployment executed twice when depends_on property
Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:25 AM, George Shuklin george.shuk...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/06/2015 04:12 PM, Steve Gordon wrote: - Original Message - From: George Shuklin george.shuk...@gmail.com To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Sorry guys. I think most of the ops here have no idea what you talking about. Telcos is telcos, ops is ops. Different worlds, different problems, different terminology. Hi George, The telco working group is intended to bridge the gap between telcommunications operators and the openstack community, something we've been working on in some form since Atlanta. Once you boil away the TLAs many of their core requirements are not significantly different for what you might consider normal operators, or at least operators in other verticals like high performance computing. We primarily communicated on the -dev list prior to Paris but the feedback we got in the session there (on the operators track no less!) was that most people involved were more comfortable communicating in the context of the operators M/L than mixed in with the development traffic. If certain types of operators are not welcome in the openstack operators community then I think that would be a shame. I think it not really possible. If you talking about 'openstack' as 'Openstack developers', may be. But for operators all telco stuff is just completely foreign. I do not understand what they doing and I don't need them for my job. Sorry. Interesting, I was actually talking for some friends about the business of 'telco' and OpenStack recently. Like some operators have indicated, the world of 'telco' is foreign to them but since my background come from the VoIP / telco environment I can see where you are coming from. I'm going to look at your proposal, and see if I can make some comments. But, I am personally interested in this topic, more as a FYI. -- Paul Belanger | PolyBeacon, Inc. Jabber: paul.belan...@polybeacon.com | IRC: pabelanger (Freenode) Github: https://github.com/pabelanger | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pabelanger ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases
On 2/6/15 12:09 PM, Tim Bell tim.b...@cern.ch wrote: -Original Message- From: Paul Belanger [mailto:paul.belan...@polybeacon.com] Sent: 06 February 2015 18:52 To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:25 AM, George Shuklin george.shuk...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/06/2015 04:12 PM, Steve Gordon wrote: - Original Message - From: George Shuklin george.shuk...@gmail.com To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Sorry guys. I think most of the ops here have no idea what you talking about. Telcos is telcos, ops is ops. Different worlds, different problems, different terminology. Hi George, The telco working group is intended to bridge the gap between telcommunications operators and the openstack community, something we've been working on in some form since Atlanta. Once you boil away the TLAs many of their core requirements are not significantly different for what you might consider normal operators, or at least operators in other verticals like high performance computing. We primarily communicated on the -dev list prior to Paris but the feedback we got in the session there (on the operators track no less!) was that most people involved were more comfortable communicating in the context of the operators M/L than mixed in with the development traffic. If certain types of operators are not welcome in the openstack operators community then I think that would be a shame. I think it not really possible. If you talking about 'openstack' as 'Openstack developers', may be. But for operators all telco stuff is just completely foreign. I do not understand what they doing and I don't need them for my job. Sorry. Interesting, I was actually talking for some friends about the business of 'telco' and OpenStack recently. Like some operators have indicated, the world of 'telco' is foreign to them but since my background come from the VoIP / telco environment I can see where you are coming from. I'm going to look at your proposal, and see if I can make some comments. But, I am personally interested in this topic, more as a FYI. I find a risk in splitting our community into too many pieces. The High Performance needs are different from the Telcos from the Finance sector but I think we can learn hugely from others. The work that Telcos do for SR-IOV and low latency is a major benefit for the HPC Infiniband use cases. Best of all is if we can make our requirements sufficiently generic to cover multiple user communities. So, Let's tag the subject lines with [telco] so people can skip if they wish but I think we have lots in common to run production clouds even if the final businesses are different. Tim I would agree. We are doing the same thing with the Large Deployments Team - keeping a group of folks focused on issues, wants, needs of large OpenStack deployments, but doing it as much as possible within the larger Ops community with some of the same tactics as mentioned above. Thanks! VW -- Paul Belanger | PolyBeacon, Inc. Jabber: paul.belan...@polybeacon.com | IRC: pabelanger (Freenode) Github: https://github.com/pabelanger | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pabelanger ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases
- Original Message - From: Paul Belanger paul.belan...@polybeacon.com To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:25 AM, George Shuklin george.shuk...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/06/2015 04:12 PM, Steve Gordon wrote: - Original Message - From: George Shuklin george.shuk...@gmail.com To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Sorry guys. I think most of the ops here have no idea what you talking about. Telcos is telcos, ops is ops. Different worlds, different problems, different terminology. Hi George, The telco working group is intended to bridge the gap between telcommunications operators and the openstack community, something we've been working on in some form since Atlanta. Once you boil away the TLAs many of their core requirements are not significantly different for what you might consider normal operators, or at least operators in other verticals like high performance computing. We primarily communicated on the -dev list prior to Paris but the feedback we got in the session there (on the operators track no less!) was that most people involved were more comfortable communicating in the context of the operators M/L than mixed in with the development traffic. If certain types of operators are not welcome in the openstack operators community then I think that would be a shame. I think it not really possible. If you talking about 'openstack' as 'Openstack developers', may be. But for operators all telco stuff is just completely foreign. I do not understand what they doing and I don't need them for my job. Sorry. Interesting, I was actually talking for some friends about the business of 'telco' and OpenStack recently. Like some operators have indicated, the world of 'telco' is foreign to them but since my background come from the VoIP / telco environment I can see where you are coming from. I'm going to look at your proposal, and see if I can make some comments. But, I am personally interested in this topic, more as a FYI. Right, and on face value many of the use cases are still too far removed in terms of domain specific language, acronyms, etc. from where we want them to be to be broadly understandable and actionable - but we're trying to start somewhere and work on that :). I think the more broadly applicable/interesting conversation from Marc's original question is how/where are operators coming at OpenStack from other directions documenting their use cases that they ultimately want to drive changes or new features in OpenStack with for community consumption? Thanks, Steve ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
