On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Xav Paice <xavpa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 3 May 2016 at 05:03, Matt Jarvis <matt.jar...@datacentred.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Thanks for the clarification Kyle. >> >> On 2 May 2016 at 14:33, Kyle Mestery <mest...@mestery.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Matt Jarvis >>> <matt.jar...@datacentred.co.uk> wrote: >>> > I know there are operators relying on these functions, particularly in >>> > the >>> > public cloud space in Europe, so this would impact those people. >>> > >>> I'm actually really surprised that people are *using* FWaaS. It's been >>> marked experimental for over 3 years now, and it only recently in >>> Liberty received work which made it somewhat useful, which was the >>> ability to apply a firewall on a specific Neutron router rather than >>> all tenant routers. FWaaS in production sounds pretty risky to me, but >>> I supposed that our fault for not being clear on it's readiness. >>> > > It might be good at this stage to differentiate between the number of people > using FWaaS and VPNaaS. It might be that the FWaaS is much less used than > VPN, and while we've had a large number of support calls regarding VPNaaS, > using the service has meant that we can operate as a public cloud despite > having a very limited amount of IPv4 address space. Without VPNaaS, we > would have to make some very difficult changes to our operations and > probably wind up pouring resources into maintaining something that doesn't > provide such a nice customer experience. We've not yet worked out what > FWaaS is for, and our customers haven't asked us for it. > > >>> >>> > If we have metrics that a constituent part of the user community need >>> > these >>> > functions, then we can try and find a way to help the Neutron team to >>> > cover >>> > the resourcing gaps. >>> > >>> If people are using these, IMHO that's another reason to keep them >>> around. I've already said that we have at least one large user of VPN, >>> so that project will continue to be worked on even if it's removed >>> from Neutron. > > > I would expect large users of a project to be able to contribute at least > _some_ resources to keep the code alive. As a small user of VPNaaS , I > would also expect to contribute some resources - but we're too small to be a > significant contributor here. > > I'm not sure how OSIC would relate, particularly as this is low/absent in > their priorities, but if the only barrier to people working on VPNaaS is > getting a test/dev cluster to work with then surely it's a barrier that can > be removed. I would expect the developer time to be the biggest hurdle. > I don't think OSIC relates at all. The issue is not test HW or resources, but actual people writing code, maintaining the code, and pushing the ball forward.
> _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
