Wow, Trevor! Thanks for capturing all that!
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Trevor Vardeman < trevor.varde...@rackspace.com> wrote: > Agenda items are numbered, and topics, as discussed, are described beneath > in list format. > > 1) Octavia Constitution and Project Direction Documents (Road map) > a) Constitution and Road map will potentially be adopted after another > couple days; providing those who were busy more time to review the > information > > 2) Octavia Design Proposals > a) Difference between version 0.5 and 1.0 isn't huge > b) Version 2 has many network topology changes and Layer 4 routing > + This includes N node Active-Active > + Would like to avoid Layer 2 connectivity with Load Balancers > (included in version 1 however) > + Layer router driver > + Layer router controller > + Long term solution > c) After refining Version 1 document (with some scrutiny) all changes > will be propagated to the Version 2 document > d) Version 0.5 is unpublished > e) All control layer, anything connected to the intermediate message > bus in version 1, will be collapsed down to 1 daemon. > + No scale-able control, but scale-able service delivery > + Version 1 will be the first large operator compatible version, > that will have both scale-able control and scale-able service delivery > + 0.5 will be a good start > - laying out ground work > - rough topology for the end users > - must be approved by the networking teams for each > contributing company > f) The portions under control of neutron lbaas is the User API and the > driver (for neutron lbaas) > g) If neutron LBaaS is a sufficient front-end (user API doesn't suck), > then Octavia will be kept as a vendor driver > h) Potentially including a REST API on top of Octavia > + Octavia is initially just a vendor driver, no real desire for > another API in front of Octavia > + If someone wants it, the work is "trivial" and can be done in > another project at another time > i) Octavia should have a loose coupling with Neutron; use a shim for > network connectivity (one specifically for Neutron communication in the > start) > + This is going to hold any "dirty hacks" that would be required > to get something done, keeping Octavia clean > - Example: changing the mac address on a port > > 3) Operator Network Topology Requirements > a) One requirement is floating IPs. > b) IPv6 is in demand, but is currently not supported reliably on > Neutron > + IPv6 would be represented as a different load balancer entity, > and possibly include co-location with another Load Balancer > c) Network interface plug-ability (potentially) > d) Sections concerning front-end connectivity should be forwarded to > each company's network specialists for review > + Share findings in the mailing list, and dissect the proposals > with the information and comment what requirements are needing added etc. > > 4) HA/Failover Options/Solutions > a) Rackspace may have a solution to this, but the conversation will be > pushed off to the next meeting (at least) > + Will gather more information from another member in Rackspace to > provide to the ML for initial discussions > b) One option for HA: Spare pool option (similar to Libra) > + Poor recovery time is a big problem > c) Another option for HA: Active/Passive > + Bluebox uses one active and one passive configuration, and has > sub-second fail over. However is not resource-sufficient > > Questions: > Q: What is the expectation for a release time-frame > A: Wishful thinking; Octavia version 0.5 beta for Juno (probably not, but > would be awesome to push for that) > > Notes: > + We need to pressure the Neutron core reviewers to review the Neutron > LBaaS changes to get merges. > + Version 2 front-end topology is different than the Version 1. Please > review them individually, and thoroughly > > > PS. I re-wrote most of the information from the recording (thanks again > Doug). I have one question for everyone: should I just email this out > after each meeting to the Octavia mailing list, or should I also add it to > a page in an Octavia wiki for Meeting Notes/Minutes or something for review > by anyone? What are your thoughts? > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Stephen Balukoff Blue Box Group, LLC (800)613-4305 x807
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
