Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

We don't use FWaaS but we certainly are interested in LBaaS and VPNaaS. Chalk us up to a vendor trying to implement these. VPNaaS is huge as it allows customers to non-disruptively attach their organizations to a public cloud with the same IP space as is the case with AWS. I'd be open to letting th

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

We have actually started to look at VPNaaS as a way to tie two different region's Tenant Networks together.. This will hopefully allow us to not have to look at users using too many Floating IPs to just support tools and products that have issues with Floating IPs. On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:18 AM

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

We see FWaaS generally being used by customers with larger deployments, where they want overall firewall rules at the boundary as well as security groups. Since my original post on this thread, I went to look at the numbers - it's actually being used more widely than I originally thought on our pla

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

Hi Kyle, > I know there are operators relying on these functions, particularly in the > public cloud space in Europe, so this would impact those people. I also know > this list doesn't necessarily reach all of them either, so I will try and > reach out by other means as well, but it would be very

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Xav Paice wrote: > > > On 3 May 2016 at 05:03, Matt Jarvis wrote: >> >> Thanks for the clarification Kyle. >> >> On 2 May 2016 at 14:33, Kyle Mestery wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Matt Jarvis >>> wrote: >>> > I know there are operators relying o

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Kosnik, Lubosz wrote: > Complete priority list is available on OSIC.org website and > currently there is no info about VPNaaS or FWaaS. There are mails added to > people responsible for roadmap and when you will have a complete list of > people

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

On 3 May 2016 at 05:03, Matt Jarvis wrote: > Thanks for the clarification Kyle. > > On 2 May 2016 at 14:33, Kyle Mestery wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Matt Jarvis >> wrote: >> > I know there are operators relying on these functions, particularly in >> the >> > public cloud space

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

Thanks for the clarification Kyle. On 2 May 2016 at 14:33, Kyle Mestery wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Matt Jarvis > wrote: > > As some of you on this list may already know, there are issues in the > > Neutron team with development resources on VPNaas and FWaaS, and there > have > >

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Matt Jarvis wrote: > As some of you on this list may already know, there are issues in the > Neutron team with development resources on VPNaas and FWaaS, and there have > been discussions in Austin about deprecating the code from the main Neutron > codebase. The de

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

Complete priority list is available on OSIC.org website and currently there is no info about VPNaaS or FWaaS. There are mails added to people responsible for roadmap and when you will have a complete list of people which need this feature you can contact them and discuss about t

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

Thank you Matt for the update and call to action. > On Apr 29, 2016, at 9:16 AM, Matt Jarvis > wrote: > > Yes the problem is exactly that there is a lack of developer resource on > VPNaaS and FWaaS specifically, and probably because these aren't functions > many vendors need. We'd like to exp

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

Yes the problem is exactly that there is a lack of developer resource on VPNaaS and FWaaS specifically, and probably because these aren't functions many vendors need. We'd like to explore what mechanisms there could be for funding resource, but the most important thing right now is for all those op

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

Thanks for the feedback Lubosz. Is OSIC as well to be a resource for in demand (enterprise) features that the community does not have available resources (developers) to work on? Are there existing alternatives to these two (Octavia) which will pick up where these are being left and therefore th

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

The idea of OSIC clusters is to give people access to multi node environments to test software in scale. There are a lot of thing which brakes in big scale. If I'm right the problem is that there is not so many developers which are working on this *asS but please tell if I'm wrong. Lubosz "diltr

Re: [Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

Please take a moment to reach out to the Neutron team and visit the following. Could this resource be of use to address their concern? https://osic.org/clusters > On Apr 29, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Matt Jarvis > wrote: > > As some of you on this list may already know, there are issues in the Neutron

[Openstack-operators] VPNaaS and FWaaS

As some of you on this list may already know, there are issues in the Neutron team with development resources on VPNaas and FWaaS, and there have been discussions in Austin about deprecating the code from the main Neutron codebase. The decision is currently that the code will remain for another 6 m