Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

, 2014 7:06 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Cc: Samuel Bercovici; Eugene Nikanorov (enikano...@mirantis.com); Evgeny Fedoruk; Avishay Balderman Subject: RE: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion Hi, I have added to the wiki page: https

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Hi folks! Just one other thing I'd like to bring up here as well: On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Eugene Nikanorov wrote: > I see IP address sharing as user intent, not an implementation detail. >> Same backend could be not only the only obstacle here. >> >> The backend is not exposed anyhow b

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

> > I see IP address sharing as user intent, not an implementation detail. > Same backend could be not only the only obstacle here. > > The backend is not exposed anyhow by the API, by the way. > > When you create root object with flavor - you really can't control to > which driver it will be sched

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

From: Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 11:12 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion The point is to be able to share IP address, it really means

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

=$POOL-1... à $VIP-2 > > > > > > Youcef > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:26 PM > *To:* Samuel Bercovici > *Cc:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (n

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

+1 From: Youcef Laribi [mailto:youcef.lar...@citrix.com] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 10:11 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion Hi Eugene, Thanks for the provided detail. See my comments

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:26 PM To: Samuel Bercovici Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion Hi Sam, I've looked over the document, couple of notes: 1) In order to allow real multiple 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

OL-1... à $VIP-2 > > > > > > Youcef > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:26 PM > *To:* Samuel Bercovici > *Cc:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not fo

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Monday, February 24, 2014 7:36 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Cc: Samuel Bercovici Subject: RE: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion Hi, I also agree that the model should be pure logical. I think that the existing model is almost co

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

y 24, 2014 7:36 PM > > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > *Cc:* Samuel Bercovici > *Subject:* RE: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion > > > > Hi, > > > > I also agree that the model should be pure logical. &g

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Bercovici Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 7:36 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Cc: Samuel Bercovici Subject: RE: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion Hi, I also agree that the model should be pure logical. I think that the existing model is almost

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 16:11 +0400, Eugene Nikanorov wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Jay Pipes > wrote: > neutron l7-policy-create --type="uri-regex-matching" \ > --attr=URIRegex="static\.example\.com.*" > > Presume above returns an ID for the policy $

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

A couple of notes: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > > neutron l7-policy-create --type="uri-regex-matching" \ > --attr=URIRegex="static\.example\.com.*" > > Presume above returns an ID for the policy $L7_POLICY_ID. We could then > assign that policy to operate on the front

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Hi Ed, That sounds good to me, actually: As long as 'cloud admin' API functions are represented as well as 'simple user workflows', then I'm all for a unified API that simply exposes more depending on permissions. Stephen On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Ed Hall wrote: > > On Feb 25, 2014,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 18:07 -0800, Stephen Balukoff wrote: > Hi y'all, > > Jay, in the L7 example you give, it looks like you're setting SSL > parameters for a given load balancer front-end. Correct. The example comes straight out of the same example in the ELB API documentation. The only differ

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

On Feb 25, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Stephen Balukoff mailto:sbaluk...@bluebox.net>> wrote: On Feb 25, 2014 at 3:39 AM, enikano...@mirantis.com wrote: Agree, however actual hardware is beyond logical LBaaS API but could be a part of admin LBaaS API. Aah yes-- In my o

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Hi Eugene! Responses inline: On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Eugene Nikanorov wrote: > > I'm really not sure what Mark McClain on some other folks see as > implementation details. To me the 'instance' concept is as logical as > others (vips/pool/etc). But anyway, it looks like majority of those

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Hi Stephen, My comments inline: On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Stephen Balukoff wrote: > Hi y'all, > > Jay, in the L7 example you give, it looks like you're setting SSL > parameters for a given load balancer front-end. Do you have an example you > can share where where certain traffic is sent

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Hi y'all, Jay, in the L7 example you give, it looks like you're setting SSL parameters for a given load balancer front-end. Do you have an example you can share where where certain traffic is sent to one set of back-end nodes, and other traffic is sent to a different set of back-end nodes based on

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Hi Jay, Thanks for suggestions. I get the idea. I'm not sure the essence of this API is much different then what we have now. 1) We operate on parameters of loadbalancer rather then on vips/pools/listeners. No matter how we name them, the notions are there. 2) I see two opposite preferences: one i

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Thanks, Eugene! I've given the API a bit of thought today and jotted down some thoughts below. On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 23:57 +0400, Eugene Nikanorov wrote: > Could you provide some examples -- even in the pseudo-CLI > commands like > I did below. It's really difficult to unde

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

nt in the next few days. > > > > Regards, > > -Sam. > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Mark McClain [mailto:mmccl...@yahoo-inc.com] > *Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2014 6:32 PM > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 6:32 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion On Feb 21, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Jay Pipes mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote: I disagree on this point. I beli

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Mark, I'm not sure I understand what are implementation details in the workflow I have proposed in the email above, could you point to them? Thanks, Eugene. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Mark McClain wrote: > > On Feb 21, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > I disagree on this point. I

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

On Feb 21, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Jay Pipes mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote: I disagree on this point. I believe that the more implementation details bleed into the API, the harder the API is to evolve and improve, and the less flexible the API becomes. I'd personally love to see the next version

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

> > > > Could you provide some examples -- even in the pseudo-CLI commands like > I did below. It's really difficult to understand where the limits are > without specific examples. > You know, I always look at the API proposal from implementation standpoint also, so here's what I see. In the cli wo

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 22:58 +0400, Eugene Nikanorov wrote: > Hi Jay, > > Just a quick response: > > The 'implementation detail in API' that we all are arguing about is > some hint from the user about how logical configuration is mapped on > the backend(s), not much detail IMO. > > Your proposed

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Hi Jay, Just a quick response: The 'implementation detail in API' that we all are arguing about is some hint from the user about how logical configuration is mapped on the backend(s), not much detail IMO. Your proposed model has that, because you create the balancer at once and the driver can ea

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 15:21 +0400, Eugene Nikanorov wrote: > I agree with Samuel here. I feel the logical model and other > issues > (implementation etc.) are mixed in the discussion. > > A little bit. While ideally it's better to separate it, in my opinion > we need to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

At Thu, 20 Feb 2014 15:21:49 +0400, Eugene Nikanorov wrote: > > Hi Iwamoto, > > > > I agree with Samuel here. I feel the logical model and other issues > > (implementation etc.) are mixed in the discussion. > > > > A little bit. While ideally it's better to separate it, in my opinion we > need

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Hi Iwamoto, > I agree with Samuel here. I feel the logical model and other issues > (implementation etc.) are mixed in the discussion. > A little bit. While ideally it's better to separate it, in my opinion we need to have some 'fair bit' of implementation details in API in order to reduce code

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

At Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:47:37 -0800, Stephen Balukoff wrote: > > [1 ] > [1.1 ] > Small correction to my option #4 (here as #4.1). Neutron port_id should be > an attribute of the 'loadbalancer' object, not the 'cluster' object. > (Though cluster should have a network_id attribute). Hi Eugene and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

At Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:23:04 +0400, Eugene Nikanorov wrote: > > Hi Sam, > > My comments inline: > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Samuel Bercovici wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I think we mix different aspects of operations. And try to solve a non > > "problem". > > > Not really, Adva

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Hi guys! This is a great discussion, and I'm glad y'all have been participating in it thus far, eh! Thanks also for you patience digesting my mile long posts. My comments are in-line: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Youcef Laribi wrote: > Hi guys, > > > > I have been catching up on this inte

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Hi guys, I have been catching up on this interesting thread around the object model, so sorry in advance to jump in late in this debate, and if I missed some of the subtleties of the points being made so far. I tend to agree with Sam that the original intention of the current object model was

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Hi Sam, My comments inline: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Samuel Bercovici wrote: > Hi, > > > > I think we mix different aspects of operations. And try to solve a non > "problem". > Not really, Advanced features we're trying to introduce are incompatible by both object model and API. From

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Hi, I think we mix different aspects of operations. And try to solve a non "problem". >From APIs/Operations we are mixing the following models: 1. Logical model (which as far as I understand is the topic of this discussion) - tenants define what they need logically vip-->default_pool, l7

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Thanks for quick response, Stephen, See my comments inline: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Stephen Balukoff wrote: > Hi y'all! > > Eugene: Are the arrows in your diagrams meaningful? > Arrow means 'one object references another'. > Regarding existing workflows: Do we have any idea how wi

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Object Model discussion

Hi folks, Recently we were discussing LBaaS object model with Mark McClain in order to address several problems that we faced while approaching L7 rules and multiple vips per pool. To cut long story short: with existing workflow and model it's impossible to use L7 rules, because each pool being c