Difference between revisions of "Neutron/LBaaS/Usecases"
(→Vendor Passthrough) |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
== Vendor Passthrough == | == Vendor Passthrough == | ||
| − | Will there always be a standardized API no matter which backend driver is used? How do we account for functionality | + | Will there always be a standardized API no matter which backend driver is used? How do we account for functionality in Netscaler that may not exist in HAProxy (contrived example)? |
Revision as of 19:04, 1 April 2014
This page is dedicated to track operator's data on how users utilize load balancing. What their deployments/configurations look like.
Contents
Uses cases
SSL Termination
This has already been proposed and in the process of being accepted. Neutron/LBaaS/SSL.
L7 Scriptability
Define a flexible API which allows for L7 Scripting.
High Availability
Ability to define an active/active or active/standby cluster of load balancers. This will be realized differently depending on the backend driver. For example Citrix implements this with a middlewear API server [Netscaler Control Center].
Service VMs
Would it make sense to take advantage of these blueprints as it relates to LBaaS?
- https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/adv-services-in-vms
- https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dynamic-network-resource-mgmt
Vendor Passthrough
Will there always be a standardized API no matter which backend driver is used? How do we account for functionality in Netscaler that may not exist in HAProxy (contrived example)?
