Prasanna, see answers inline. On 5/29/13 6:59 AM, "Prasanna Santhanam" <t...@apache.org> wrote:
>With the introduction of internal LB with n-tier apps there are >additional APIs for LoadBalancers: > >For regular old style load balancing which works with rules: >listLoadBalancerRules >createLoadBalancerRule >deleteLoadBalancerRule > >Each return a LoadBalancerResponse >(should that be renamed to LoadBalancerRuleResponse?) > >and assignToLoadBalancerRule assigns VMs to the rule > >On n-tier though via internallbVM one can create LoadBalancers. The >group of APIs: >createLoadBalancer >deleteLoadBalancer >listLoadBalancers > >each returns an ApplicationLoadBalancerResponse > >and assignToLoadBalancerRule which adds VMs to the above created >containers. > >From the spec [1] I partially understand the workflow but have some >doubts. > >From what I understood the n-tier APIs act like containers of >LoadBalancerRules. Is this correct? Correct. > >If yes, are we overloading the existing APIs to add rules to an >internal load balancer? No. Old apis are used for creating LB rules just for the Public IP address. > > >If no, are the new set of APIs used to add rules as well (it seems >this is the case)? In which case - does it make sense to think of it >as a logical (re-appliable) grouping? In the future we might deprecate all set of APIs as the new ones are generic enough to support both Public and Internal LB rules (they accept ip address + the networkId of the network ip belongs to). > >Does this (partially) relate to the Elastic Load Balancing on AWS? > >Thanks, > >-- >Prasanna., > >------------------------ >Powered by BigRock.com > >
