Monty, The architectural changes to the installation guide for Liberty [1] support booting VMs on both the public/external/provider and private/project/self-service networks.
Also, we should consider including similar "hybrid" scenarios in the networking guide [2] so deployers don't have to choose between these architectures. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/221560/ [2] http://docs.openstack.org/networking-guide/deploy.html Matt On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Monty Taylor <mord...@inaugust.com> wrote: > Hey all! > > If any of you have ever gotten drunk with me, you'll know I hate floating > IPs more than I hate being stabbed in the face with a very angry fish. > > However, that doesn't really matter. What should matter is "what is the > most sane thing we can do for our users" > > As you might have seen in the glance thread, I have a bunch of OpenStack > public cloud accounts. Since I wrote that email this morning, I've added > more - so we're up to 13. > > auro > citycloud > datacentred > dreamhost > elastx > entercloudsuite > hp > ovh > rackspace > runabove > ultimum > unitedstack > vexxhost > > Of those public clouds, 5 of them require you to use a floating IP to get > an outbound address, the others directly attach you to the public network. > Most of those 8 allow you to create a private network, to boot vms on the > private network, and ALSO to create a router with a gateway and put > floating IPs on your private ip'd machines if you choose. > > Which brings me to the suggestion I'd like to make. > > Instead of having our default in devstack and our default when we talk > about things be "you boot a VM and you put a floating IP on it" - which > solves one of the two usage models - how about: > > - Cloud has a shared: True, external:routable: True neutron network. I > don't care what it's called ext-net, public, whatever. the "shared" part > is the key, that's the part that lets someone boot a vm on it directly. > > - Each person can then make a private network, router, gateway, etc. and > get floating-ips from the same public network if they prefer that model. > > Are there any good reasons to not push to get all of the public networks > marked as "shared"? > > OH - well, one thing - that's that once there are two networks in an > account you have to specify which one. This is really painful in nova > clent. Say, for instance, you have a public network called "public" and a > private network called "private" ... > > You can't just say "nova boot --network=public" - nope, you need to say > "nova boot --nics net-id=$uuid_of_my_public_network" > > So I'd suggest 2 more things; > > a) an update to python-novaclient to allow a named network to be passed to > satisfy the "you have more than one network" - the nics argument is still > useful for more complex things > > b) ability to say "vms in my cloud should default to being booted on the > public network" or "vms in my cloud should default to being booted on a > network owned by the user" > > Thoughts? > > Monty > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
