On 2016-02-26 11:21:47 +0000 (+0000), Matt Jarvis wrote: > From a public cloud perspective I'm not convinced that an opt-out argument > is the right way to go. A router in our context is a chargeable item, > because it has an external IP address, so automatically creating stuff > without the user specifying it is not an ideal outcome. Personally I'd > rather see an opt-in argument ie. option 1
As a user of many public clouds, some of which use Nova network, some of which use Neutron with a common flat provider network, et cetera, _I_ want them to behave consistently when I ask them to boot a node rather than needing to remember that on some subset of them I also need to perform an unholy dance to convince them I really want to have access to the servers I've created. Making it so that some public cloud providers can continue to require completely different business logic than others just to have a reachable server basically shoots any hope we have as a community for consistency and "interoperability" in the head. Cloud providers seem to think that they'll attract me with their unique market differentiating features, but I could really care less. What I want is for OpenStack to succeed by providing a seamless experience where things look as identical as possible no matter what provider or environment I use. OpenStack doesn't need to compete against itself, there is plenty enough competition out there for us already even if we band together in a unity of design and function. -- Jeremy Stanley _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
