From: Romain Lengletrom...@midokura.jp
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:03:57 +0900
To: 石井 久治ishii.hisah...@lab.ntt.co.jp
Cc:openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network
Infrastructure
blueprint
Hi Ishii-san,
On Tuesday, February 15
...@lab.ntt.co.jp
Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure
blueprint
Hi Ishii-san,
On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 at 16:28, 石井 久治 wrote:
Hello Hiroshi-san
Do you mean that the former API is an interface
@lists.launchpad.net
[mailto:openstack-bounces openstack-bounces+ewan.mellor=
citrix@lists.launchpad.net
]
On Behalf Of Masanori ITOH
Sent: 31 January 2011 10:31
To: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network
Infrastructure blueprint
Hello,
We, NTT
@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network
Infrastructure blueprint
Hi Ishii-san,
On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 at 16:28, 石井 久治 wrote:
Hello Hiroshi-san
Do you mean that the former API is an interface that is
defined
@lists.launchpad.net
[mailto:openstack-bounces+ewan.mellor=citrix@lists.launchpad.net
]
On Behalf Of Masanori ITOH
Sent: 31 January 2011 10:31
To: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network
Infrastructure blueprint
Hello,
We, NTT DATA, also agree
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network
Infrastructure blueprint
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Armando Migliaccio
armando.migliac...@eu.citrix.com wrote:
I second what Ewan said about the coding style in nova.virt.xenapi. I
was
responsible for part of refactoring and I am
for L2/L3 Network
Infrastructure blueprint
On Feb 3, 2011, at 8:52 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
Absolutely not, as long as we're not trying to merge conflicting
branches. That was the problem last time -- I18N and the logging
changes in particular were such pervasive pieces of work
On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Ewan Mellor wrote:
Maybe we should normally do big-picture merges normally, but have an
exception procedure for when we'd like them piecemeal.
I think the main differentiator should be if the partial merge can
stand on its own. IOW, with something like
++ on all below points :) There are few bugs or blueprints that
actually require a huge patch. Most things can be done in small
chunks, making sure each chunk doesn't break tests...
-jay
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Ed Leafe e...@leafe.com wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Ewan Mellor
[mailto:openstack-bounces+ewan.mellor=citrix@lists.launchpad.net]
On Behalf Of Masanori ITOH
Sent: 31 January 2011 10:31
To: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network
Infrastructure blueprint
Hello,
We, NTT DATA, also agree with majority
to help ;-)
Ewan.
From: Andy Smith [mailto:andys...@gmail.com]
Sent: 28 January 2011 15:40
To: Rick Clark
Cc: Jay Pipes; Ewan Mellor; Søren Hansen; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure
blueprint
I'd second a bit of what Jay says
: John Purrier j...@openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure
blueprint
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 06:06:26 +0900
You are correct, the networking service will be more complex than the volume
service. The existing blueprint is pretty comprehensive, not only
the requirements level.
Any thoughts?
Masanori
From: John Purrier j...@openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network
Infrastructure blueprint
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 06:06:26 +0900
You are correct, the networking service will be more complex than
: Rick Clark; Jay Pipes; Ewan Mellor; Søren Hansen;
openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure
blueprint
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:19 PM, John Purrier j...@openstack.org wrote:
Thanks for the response, Andy. I think we actually
;
openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure
blueprint
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:19 PM, John Purrier j...@openstack.org wrote:
Thanks for the response, Andy. I think we actually agree on this J.
You said:
This statement
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Devin Carlen devin.car...@gmail.com wrote:
This has my support. For our time frame and the goal of robustness and
stability for the upcoming release, this is the most reasonable course of
action.
Seconded.
-jay
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 4:06 PM
To: John Purrier
Cc: Rick Clark; Jay Pipes; Ewan Mellor; Søren Hansen;
openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure
blueprint
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:19 PM, John Purrier j
...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Friday, January 28, 2011 12:45 PM
*To:* John Purrier
*Cc:* Rick Clark; Jay Pipes; Ewan Mellor; Søren Hansen;
openstack@lists.launchpad.net
*Subject:* Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network
Infrastructure blueprint
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:18 AM, John
Hi all,
(2011/01/29 4:52), Thierry Carrez wrote:
I agree that there is value in starting the proof-of-concept work around
the network services, without sacrificing too many developers to it, so
that a good plan can be presented and discussed at the Diablo Summit.
We (NTT PF Lab.) also agree
Thanks for the update, Ewan, and for the gentle encouragement for
open, transparent, and public discussions of design. Let's move the
discussions of the Network Service project forward! All involved:
please don't hesitate to contact me or this mailing list if you have
any questions at all about
Soren will be running the network service infrastructure from the
Rackspace/Openstack side.
I want to temper this discussion by reminding everyone that Cactus will
be a testing/stabilization release. Feature freeze will come much
quicker and we want anything major changes to hit very early.
I
On 01/28/2011 08:55 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Rick Clark r...@openstack.org wrote:
I recognise the desire to do this for Cactus, but I feel that pulling
out the network controller (and/or volume controller) into their own
separate OpenStack subprojects is not a good
I'd second a bit of what Jay says and toss in that I don't think the code is
ready to be splitting services off:
- There have already been significant problems dealing with glance, the nasa
people and the rackspace people have effectively completely different code
paths (nasa: ec2, objectstore,
I agree. I think splitting glance into a separate project has actually slowed
it down. We should keep network service in trunk for the moment.
Also, there were a couple of networking blueprints that were combined at the
last design summit into one presentation. The presentation was given by
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya
vishvana...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. I think splitting glance into a separate project has actually
slowed it down.
Massively disagree here. The only slowdown integrating Glance/Nova
was around packaging issues, and those have now been
Hi Vish, all,
We paused our efforts around the next-service because the plan was that
Rackspace was going to offer a dev lead for the work, and we didn't want to
be making design decisions without that dev lead taking part. It sounds
like Soren is that guy and that Ewan will also be playing a
On 01/28/2011 11:45 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya
vishvana...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. I think splitting glance into a separate project has actually
slowed it down.
Massively disagree here. The only slowdown integrating Glance/Nova
was around
And please don't get the idea that I'm complaining about the glance project
itself, or how it is managed. As far as I'm concerned, Jay and the other
developers have done an excellent job with glance. It is just very difficult
to keep up with multiple projects, and I think they should be kept
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya
vishvana...@gmail.com wrote:
Integration is the issue. It only works with osapi/xen at this point which
isn't even the default hypervisor setting in the packaging. A large number
of people involved in Nova haven't even looked at it. The
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya
vishvana...@gmail.com wrote:
And please don't get the idea that I'm complaining about the glance project
itself, or how it is managed. As far as I'm concerned, Jay and the other
developers have done an excellent job with glance. It is
Hansen; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure
blueprint
On 01/28/2011 08:55 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Rick Clark r...@openstack.org wrote:
I recognise the desire to do this for Cactus, but I feel
-bounces+john openstack-bounces%2Bjohn=openstack.org@
lists.launchpad.net] On Behalf Of Rick Clark
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 9:06 AM
To: Jay Pipes
Cc: Ewan Mellor; Søren Hansen; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure
John Purrier wrote:
Here is the suggestion. It is clear from the response on the list that
refactoring Nova in the Cactus timeframe will be too risky, particularly as
we are focusing Cactus on Stability, Reliability, and Deployability (along
with a complete OpenStack API). For Cactus we
=openstack@lists.launchpad.net] On Behalf
Of Thierry Carrez
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 1:52 PM
To: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure
blueprint
John Purrier wrote:
Here is the suggestion. It is clear from the response on the list
code for this
milestone.
John
From: Andy Smith [mailto:andys...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 12:45 PM
To: John Purrier
Cc: Rick Clark; Jay Pipes; Ewan Mellor; Søren Hansen;
openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure
, January 28, 2011 12:45 PM
*To:* John Purrier
*Cc:* Rick Clark; Jay Pipes; Ewan Mellor; Søren Hansen;
openstack@lists.launchpad.net
*Subject:* Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network
Infrastructure blueprint
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:18 AM, John Purrier j...@openstack.org wrote
36 matches
Mail list logo
