settingsLogin | Registersettings

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

0 votes

Hello, Ed,

Just as Peter mentioned, "BT's NFV use cases e.g. vCPE, vCDN, vEPC, vIMS, MEC, IoT, where we will have compute highly distributed around the network (from thousands to millions of sites) ". vCPE is only one use case, but not all. And the hardware facility to run "vCDN, vEPC, vIMS, MEC" is not in set-box or single hardware, even in current non-cloud way, it includes lots of blades, rack servers, chasises, or racks.

A whitepaper was just created "Accelerating NFV Delivery with OpenStack" https://www.openstack.org/telecoms-and-nfv/

So it's part of a cloud architecture, the challenge is how OpenStack to run "regardless of size" and in "massively distributed" manner.

Best Regards
Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)


From: Ed Leafe [ed@leafe.com]
Sent: 25 August 2016 22:03
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs

On Aug 24, 2016, at 8:42 PM, joehuang joehuang@huawei.com wrote:

Funny point of view. Let's look at the mission of OpenStack:

"to produce the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform that enables
building interoperable public and private clouds regardless of size, by being
simple to implement and massively scalable while serving the cloud users'
needs."

It mentioned that "regardless of size", and you also mentioned "cloud to me:
lots of hardware consolidation".

If it isn’t part of a cloud architecture, then it isn’t part of OpenStack’s mission. The ‘size’ qualifier relates to everything from massive clouds like CERN and Walmart down to small private clouds. It doesn’t mean ‘any sort of computing platform’; the focus is clear that we are an "Open Source Cloud Computing platform”.

-- Ed Leafe


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
asked Aug 26, 2016 in openstack-dev by joehuang (17,140 points)   2 6 9
retagged Jan 26, 2017 by admin

49 Responses

0 votes

On 08/25/2016 06:38 PM, joehuang wrote:
Hello, Ed,

Just as Peter mentioned, "BT's NFV use cases e.g. vCPE, vCDN, vEPC, vIMS, MEC, IoT, where we will have compute highly distributed around the network (from thousands to millions of sites) ". vCPE is only one use case, but not all. And the hardware facility to run "vCDN, vEPC, vIMS, MEC" is not in set-box or single hardware, even in current non-cloud way, it includes lots of blades, rack servers, chasises, or racks.

Note that I have only questioned the use case of vCPE (and IoT) as
"cloud use cases". content deliver networks, evolved packet core, and IP
multimedia subsystem services are definitely cloud use cases, IMHO,
since they belong as VNFs managed in a shared datacenter infrastructure.

A whitepaper was just created "Accelerating NFV Delivery with OpenStack" https://www.openstack.org/telecoms-and-nfv/

Nothing in the whitepaper above has anything to do with vCPE.

So it's part of a cloud architecture,

No, it's not. vCPE is definitely not a "cloud architecture".

the challenge is how OpenStack to run "regardless of size" and in
"massively distributed" manner.

No, that is not OpenStack's challenge.

It is the Telco industry's challenge to create purpose-built Telco
software delivery mechanisms, just like it's the enterprise database and
middleware industry's challenge to create RDBMS systems to meet the
modern micro-service-the-world landscape in which we live.

Asking the OpenStack community to solve a very specific Telco
application delivery need is like asking the OpenStack community to
write a relational database system that works best on 10 million IoT
devices. It's just not in our list of problem domains to tackle.

Best,
-jay

Best Regards
Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)


From: Ed Leafe [ed@leafe.com]
Sent: 25 August 2016 22:03
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs

On Aug 24, 2016, at 8:42 PM, joehuang joehuang@huawei.com wrote:

Funny point of view. Let's look at the mission of OpenStack:

"to produce the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform that enables
building interoperable public and private clouds regardless of size, by being
simple to implement and massively scalable while serving the cloud users'
needs."

It mentioned that "regardless of size", and you also mentioned "cloud to me:
lots of hardware consolidation".

If it isn’t part of a cloud architecture, then it isn’t part of OpenStack’s mission. The ‘size’ qualifier relates to everything from massive clouds like CERN and Walmart down to small private clouds. It doesn’t mean ‘any sort of computing platform’; the focus is clear that we are an "Open Source Cloud Computing platform”.

-- Ed Leafe


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Aug 27, 2016 by Jay_Pipes (59,760 points)   3 11 14
0 votes

IMHO, I wouldn't limit ourselves.

If we expand our sight to view vCPE in its entirety, not any standalone VNF, it could be a cloud of vCPEs. It could be an enterprise cloud on top of enterprise vCPEs, or a community cloud across several organizations including vCPEs within residential communities.

There is another concept of "mobile cloud" where a cloud infrastructure is formed on top of mobile devices. Sounds crazy? Well, no one believed self-driving car could become reality so soon.

From telco perspective, those are the areas that allow innovation, and provide telco customers with new types of services.

We need innovation, starting from not limiting ourselves from bringing new idea and new use cases, and bringing those impossibility to reality.

Thanks
Bin
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 2:47 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On 08/25/2016 06:38 PM, joehuang wrote:
Hello, Ed,

Just as Peter mentioned, "BT's NFV use cases e.g. vCPE, vCDN, vEPC, vIMS, MEC, IoT, where we will have compute highly distributed around the network (from thousands to millions of sites) ". vCPE is only one use case, but not all. And the hardware facility to run "vCDN, vEPC, vIMS, MEC" is not in set-box or single hardware, even in current non-cloud way, it includes lots of blades, rack servers, chasises, or racks.

Note that I have only questioned the use case of vCPE (and IoT) as "cloud use cases". content deliver networks, evolved packet core, and IP multimedia subsystem services are definitely cloud use cases, IMHO, since they belong as VNFs managed in a shared datacenter infrastructure.

A whitepaper was just created "Accelerating NFV Delivery with
OpenStack" https://www.openstack.org/telecoms-and-nfv/

Nothing in the whitepaper above has anything to do with vCPE.

So it's part of a cloud architecture,

No, it's not. vCPE is definitely not a "cloud architecture".

the challenge is how OpenStack to run "regardless of size" and in "massively distributed" manner.

No, that is not OpenStack's challenge.

It is the Telco industry's challenge to create purpose-built Telco software delivery mechanisms, just like it's the enterprise database and middleware industry's challenge to create RDBMS systems to meet the modern micro-service-the-world landscape in which we live.

Asking the OpenStack community to solve a very specific Telco application delivery need is like asking the OpenStack community to write a relational database system that works best on 10 million IoT devices. It's just not in our list of problem domains to tackle.

Best,
-jay

Best Regards
Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)


From: Ed Leafe [ed@leafe.com]
Sent: 25 August 2016 22:03
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively
distributed][architecture] Coordination between actions/WGs

On Aug 24, 2016, at 8:42 PM, joehuang joehuang@huawei.com wrote:

Funny point of view. Let's look at the mission of OpenStack:

"to produce the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform that
enables building interoperable public and private clouds regardless
of size, by being simple to implement and massively scalable while serving the cloud users'
needs."

It mentioned that "regardless of size", and you also mentioned "cloud to me:
lots of hardware consolidation".

If it isn't part of a cloud architecture, then it isn't part of OpenStack's mission. The 'size' qualifier relates to everything from massive clouds like CERN and Walmart down to small private clouds. It doesn't mean 'any sort of computing platform'; the focus is clear that we are an "Open Source Cloud Computing platform".

-- Ed Leafe


____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Aug 27, 2016 by HU,_BIN (800 points)   1
0 votes

On Aug 27, 2016, at 12:18 PM, HU, BIN bh526r@att.com wrote:

From telco perspective, those are the areas that allow innovation, and provide telco customers with new types of services.

We need innovation, starting from not limiting ourselves from bringing new idea and new use cases, and bringing those impossibility to reality.

There is innovation in OpenStack, and there is innovation in things built on top of OpenStack. We are simply trying to keep the two layers from getting confused.

-- Ed Leafe


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

responded Aug 27, 2016 by Ed_Leafe (11,720 points)   1 3 6
0 votes

The challenge in OpenStack is how to enable the innovation built on top of OpenStack.

So telco use cases is not only the innovation built on top of OpenStack. Instead, telco use cases, e.g. Gluon (NFV networking), vCPE Cloud, Mobile Cloud, Mobile Edge Cloud, brings the needed requirement for innovation in OpenStack itself. If OpenStack don't address those basic requirements, the innovation will never happen on top of OpenStack.

An example is - self-driving car is built on top of many technologies, such as sensor/camera, AI, maps, middleware etc. All innovations in each technology (sensor/camera, AI, map, etc.) bring together the innovation of self-driving car.

WE NEED INNOVATION IN OPENSTACK in order to enable the innovation built on top of OpenStack.

Thanks
Bin
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Leafe [mailto:ed@leafe.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 10:49 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On Aug 27, 2016, at 12:18 PM, HU, BIN bh526r@att.com wrote:

From telco perspective, those are the areas that allow innovation, and provide telco customers with new types of services.

We need innovation, starting from not limiting ourselves from bringing new idea and new use cases, and bringing those impossibility to reality.

There is innovation in OpenStack, and there is innovation in things built on top of OpenStack. We are simply trying to keep the two layers from getting confused.

-- Ed Leafe


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Aug 27, 2016 by HU,_BIN (800 points)   1
0 votes

Hello, Bin,

Understand your expectation. In Tricircle big-tent application: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338796/, a proposal was also given to add plugin mechnism in Nova/Cinder API layer, just like Neutron support plugin mechanism in API layer, that boosts innovation for different backend implementation to be supported, from ODL to OVN, Open Contrail....

Mobile edging computing, NFV netwoking, distributed edge cloud etc are some new scneario for OpenStack, I suggest to have at least two successive dedicated design summit sessions to discuss about that f2f, the topics to be discussed could be:

1, Use cases
2, Requirements in detail
3, Gaps in OpenStack
4, Proposal to be discussed

Arhietcture level proposal discussion
1, Proposals
2, Pros. and Cons. comparation
3, Chellenges
4, next step

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Best Regards
Chaoyi Huang(joehuang)


From: HU, BIN [bh526r@att.com]
Sent: 28 August 2016 2:16
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

The challenge in OpenStack is how to enable the innovation built on top of OpenStack.

So telco use cases is not only the innovation built on top of OpenStack. Instead, telco use cases, e.g. Gluon (NFV networking), vCPE Cloud, Mobile Cloud, Mobile Edge Cloud, brings the needed requirement for innovation in OpenStack itself. If OpenStack don't address those basic requirements, the innovation will never happen on top of OpenStack.

An example is - self-driving car is built on top of many technologies, such as sensor/camera, AI, maps, middleware etc. All innovations in each technology (sensor/camera, AI, map, etc.) bring together the innovation of self-driving car.

WE NEED INNOVATION IN OPENSTACK in order to enable the innovation built on top of OpenStack.

Thanks
Bin
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Leafe [mailto:ed@leafe.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 10:49 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On Aug 27, 2016, at 12:18 PM, HU, BIN bh526r@att.com wrote:

From telco perspective, those are the areas that allow innovation, and provide telco customers with new types of services.

We need innovation, starting from not limiting ourselves from bringing new idea and new use cases, and bringing those impossibility to reality.

There is innovation in OpenStack, and there is innovation in things built on top of OpenStack. We are simply trying to keep the two layers from getting confused.

-- Ed Leafe


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Aug 29, 2016 by joehuang (17,140 points)   2 6 9
0 votes

On 08/28/2016 09:02 PM, joehuang wrote:
Hello, Bin,

Understand your expectation. In Tricircle big-tent application: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338796/, a proposal was also given to add plugin mechnism in Nova/Cinder API layer, just like Neutron support plugin mechanism in API layer, that boosts innovation for different backend implementation to be supported, from ODL to OVN, Open Contrail....

Mobile edging computing, NFV netwoking, distributed edge cloud etc are some new scneario for OpenStack, I suggest to have at least two successive dedicated design summit sessions to discuss about that f2f, the topics to be discussed could be:

1, Use cases
2, Requirements in detail
3, Gaps in OpenStack
4, Proposal to be discussed

Arhietcture level proposal discussion
1, Proposals
2, Pros. and Cons. comparation
3, Chellenges
4, next step

Looking forward to your thoughts.

We could also have a design summit session on how to use a mail user
agent that doesn't create new mailing list thread when you're responding
to an existing thread. We could also include a topic about top-posting.

-jay


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Aug 29, 2016 by Jay_Pipes (59,760 points)   3 11 14
0 votes

On 08/27/2016 11:16 AM, HU, BIN wrote:
The challenge in OpenStack is how to enable the innovation built on top of OpenStack.

No, that's not the challenge for OpenStack.

That's like saying the challenge for gasoline is how to enable the
innovation of a jet engine.

So telco use cases is not only the innovation built on top of OpenStack. Instead, telco use cases, e.g. Gluon (NFV networking), vCPE Cloud, Mobile Cloud, Mobile Edge Cloud, brings the needed requirement for innovation in OpenStack itself. If OpenStack don't address those basic requirements,

That's the thing, Bin, those are not "basic" requirements. The Telco
vCPE and Mobile "Edge cloud" (hint: not a cloud) use cases are asking
for fundamental architectural and design changes to the foundational
components of OpenStack. Instead of Nova being designed to manage a
bunch of hardware in a relatively close location (i.e. a datacenter or
multiple datacenters), vCPE is asking for Nova to transform itself into
a micro-agent that can be run on an Apple Watch and do things in
resource-constrained environments that it was never built to do.

And, honestly, I have no idea what Gluon is trying to do. Ian sent me
some information a while ago on it. I read it. I still have no idea what
Gluon is trying to accomplish other than essentially bypassing Neutron
entirely. That's not "innovation". That's subterfuge.

the innovation will never happen on top of OpenStack.

Sure it will. AT&T and BT and other Telcos just need to write their own
software that runs their proprietary vCPE software distribution
mechanism, that's all. The OpenStack community shouldn't be relied upon
to create software that isn't applicable to general cloud computing and
cloud management platforms.

An example is - self-driving car is built on top of many technologies, such as sensor/camera, AI, maps, middleware etc. All innovations in each technology (sensor/camera, AI, map, etc.) bring together the innovation of self-driving car.

Yes, indeed, but the people who created the self-driving car software
didn't ask the people who created the cameras to write the software for
them that does the self-driving.

WE NEED INNOVATION IN OPENSTACK in order to enable the innovation built on top of OpenStack.

You are defining "innovation" in an odd way, IMHO. "Innovation" for the
vCPE use case sounds a whole lot like "rearchitect your entire software
stack so that we don't have to write much code that runs on set-top boxes."

Just being honest,
-jay

Thanks
Bin
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Leafe [mailto:ed@leafe.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 10:49 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On Aug 27, 2016, at 12:18 PM, HU, BIN bh526r@att.com wrote:

From telco perspective, those are the areas that allow innovation, and provide telco customers with new types of services.

We need innovation, starting from not limiting ourselves from bringing new idea and new use cases, and bringing those impossibility to reality.

There is innovation in OpenStack, and there is innovation in things built on top of OpenStack. We are simply trying to keep the two layers from getting confused.

-- Ed Leafe


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Aug 29, 2016 by Jay_Pipes (59,760 points)   3 11 14
0 votes

Please see inline [BH526R].

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 3:48 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On 08/27/2016 11:16 AM, HU, BIN wrote:
The challenge in OpenStack is how to enable the innovation built on top of OpenStack.

No, that's not the challenge for OpenStack.

That's like saying the challenge for gasoline is how to enable the innovation of a jet engine.

[BH526R] True. 87 gas or diesel certainly cannot be used in any jet engine. While Jet A-1 and Jet B fuel are widely used for jet engine today, innovation of a new generation of jet engine may require an innovation of new type of aviation fuel.

So telco use cases is not only the innovation built on top of
OpenStack. Instead, telco use cases, e.g. Gluon (NFV networking), vCPE
Cloud, Mobile Cloud, Mobile Edge Cloud, brings the needed requirement
for innovation in OpenStack itself. If OpenStack don't address those
basic requirements,

That's the thing, Bin, those are not "basic" requirements. The Telco vCPE and Mobile "Edge cloud" (hint: not a cloud) use cases are asking for fundamental architectural and design changes to the foundational components of OpenStack. Instead of Nova being designed to manage a bunch of hardware in a relatively close location (i.e. a datacenter or multiple datacenters), vCPE is asking for Nova to transform itself into a micro-agent that can be run on an Apple Watch and do things in resource-constrained environments that it was never built to do.

[BH526R] So we have 2 choices here - either to explicitly exclude telco requirement from OpenStack, and clearly indicate that telco needs to work on its own "telco stack"; or to allow telco to innovate within OpenStack through perhaps a new type of "telco nova" and/or "telco Neutron". Which way do you suggest?

And, honestly, I have no idea what Gluon is trying to do. Ian sent me some information a while ago on it. I read it. I still have no idea what Gluon is trying to accomplish other than essentially bypassing Neutron entirely. That's not "innovation". That's subterfuge.

[BH526R] Thank you for recognizing you don't know Gluon. Certainly the perception of "bypassing Neutron entirely" is incorrect. You are very welcome to join our project and meeting so that you can understand more of what Gluon is. We are also happy to set up specific meetings with you to discuss it too. Just let me know which way prefer. We are looking for you to participate in Gluon project and meeting.

[BH526R] On the other hand, I also try to understand why "bypassing Neutron entirely" is not an innovation. Neutron is not perfect. (I don't mean Gluon here, but) if there is an innovation that can replace Neutron entirely, everyone should be happy. Just like automobile bypassed carriage wagon entirely.

the innovation will never happen on top of OpenStack.

Sure it will. AT&T and BT and other Telcos just need to write their own software that runs their proprietary vCPE software distribution mechanism, that's all. The OpenStack community shouldn't be relied upon to create software that isn't applicable to general cloud computing and cloud management platforms.

[BH526R] If I understand correctly, this suggestion excludes telco from OpenStack entirely. That's fine.

An example is - self-driving car is built on top of many technologies, such as sensor/camera, AI, maps, middleware etc. All innovations in each technology (sensor/camera, AI, map, etc.) bring together the innovation of self-driving car.

Yes, indeed, but the people who created the self-driving car software didn't ask the people who created the cameras to write the software for them that does the self-driving.

[BH526R] It's actually the other way around. Furthermore, camera/sensor industry does see the need, and VC's funding has been dramatically increased to invest in camera/sensor, map, AI areas. And the startups in those areas are the fastest growing areas. Those investments and innovations accelerate the maturity of self-driving cars.

WE NEED INNOVATION IN OPENSTACK in order to enable the innovation built on top of OpenStack.

You are defining "innovation" in an odd way, IMHO. "Innovation" for the vCPE use case sounds a whole lot like "rearchitect your entire software stack so that we don't have to write much code that runs on set-top boxes."

[BH526R] Certainly it is misunderstanding. "Rearcihtect" may be needed. However, if the "telco Nova" and "telco Neutron" concept and components can be allowed for us telco to innovate within OpenStack, we will write the code and do the rest of work. (But prior suggestion excludes us telco entirely, if I understand correctly.)

Just being honest,
-jay

Thanks
Bin
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Leafe [mailto:ed@leafe.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 10:49 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively
distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On Aug 27, 2016, at 12:18 PM, HU, BIN bh526r@att.com wrote:

From telco perspective, those are the areas that allow innovation, and provide telco customers with new types of services.

We need innovation, starting from not limiting ourselves from bringing new idea and new use cases, and bringing those impossibility to reality.

There is innovation in OpenStack, and there is innovation in things built on top of OpenStack. We are simply trying to keep the two layers from getting confused.

-- Ed Leafe


____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Aug 29, 2016 by HU,_BIN (800 points)   1
0 votes

just to clarify, what 'innovation' do you believe is required to enable you to build on top of OpenStack. what are the feature gaps you are proposing? let's avoid defining "the cloud" since that will give you 1000 different answers if you ask 1000 different people.*

  • actually you'll get 100 answers and the rest will say: "i don't know."

On 29/08/16 12:23 PM, HU, BIN wrote:

Please see inline [BH526R].

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 3:48 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On 08/27/2016 11:16 AM, HU, BIN wrote:

The challenge in OpenStack is how to enable the innovation built on top of OpenStack.

No, that's not the challenge for OpenStack.

That's like saying the challenge for gasoline is how to enable the innovation of a jet engine.

[BH526R] True. 87 gas or diesel certainly cannot be used in any jet engine. While Jet A-1 and Jet B fuel are widely used for jet engine today, innovation of a new generation of jet engine may require an innovation of new type of aviation fuel.

So telco use cases is not only the innovation built on top of
OpenStack. Instead, telco use cases, e.g. Gluon (NFV networking), vCPE
Cloud, Mobile Cloud, Mobile Edge Cloud, brings the needed requirement
for innovation in OpenStack itself. If OpenStack don't address those
basic requirements,

That's the thing, Bin, those are not "basic" requirements. The Telco vCPE and Mobile "Edge cloud" (hint: not a cloud) use cases are asking for fundamental architectural and design changes to the foundational components of OpenStack. Instead of Nova being designed to manage a bunch of hardware in a relatively close location (i.e. a datacenter or multiple datacenters), vCPE is asking for Nova to transform itself into a micro-agent that can be run on an Apple Watch and do things in resource-constrained environments that it was never built to do.

[BH526R] So we have 2 choices here - either to explicitly exclude telco requirement from OpenStack, and clearly indicate that telco needs to work on its own "telco stack"; or to allow telco to innovate within OpenStack through perhaps a new type of "telco nova" and/or "telco Neutron". Which way do you suggest?

And, honestly, I have no idea what Gluon is trying to do. Ian sent me some information a while ago on it. I read it. I still have no idea what Gluon is trying to accomplish other than essentially bypassing Neutron entirely. That's not "innovation". That's subterfuge.

[BH526R] Thank you for recognizing you don't know Gluon. Certainly the perception of "bypassing Neutron entirely" is incorrect. You are very welcome to join our project and meeting so that you can understand more of what Gluon is. We are also happy to set up specific meetings with you to discuss it too. Just let me know which way prefer. We are looking for you to participate in Gluon project and meeting.

[BH526R] On the other hand, I also try to understand why "bypassing Neutron entirely" is not an innovation. Neutron is not perfect. (I don't mean Gluon here, but) if there is an innovation that can replace Neutron entirely, everyone should be happy. Just like automobile bypassed carriage wagon entirely.

the innovation will never happen on top of OpenStack.

Sure it will. AT&T and BT and other Telcos just need to write their own software that runs their proprietary vCPE software distribution mechanism, that's all. The OpenStack community shouldn't be relied upon to create software that isn't applicable to general cloud computing and cloud management platforms.

[BH526R] If I understand correctly, this suggestion excludes telco from OpenStack entirely. That's fine.

An example is - self-driving car is built on top of many technologies, such as sensor/camera, AI, maps, middleware etc. All innovations in each technology (sensor/camera, AI, map, etc.) bring together the innovation of self-driving car.

Yes, indeed, but the people who created the self-driving car software didn't ask the people who created the cameras to write the software for them that does the self-driving.

[BH526R] It's actually the other way around. Furthermore, camera/sensor industry does see the need, and VC's funding has been dramatically increased to invest in camera/sensor, map, AI areas. And the startups in those areas are the fastest growing areas. Those investments and innovations accelerate the maturity of self-driving cars.

WE NEED INNOVATION IN OPENSTACK in order to enable the innovation built on top of OpenStack.

You are defining "innovation" in an odd way, IMHO. "Innovation" for the vCPE use case sounds a whole lot like "rearchitect your entire software stack so that we don't have to write much code that runs on set-top boxes."

[BH526R] Certainly it is misunderstanding. "Rearcihtect" may be needed. However, if the "telco Nova" and "telco Neutron" concept and components can be allowed for us telco to innovate within OpenStack, we will write the code and do the rest of work. (But prior suggestion excludes us telco entirely, if I understand correctly.)

Just being honest,
-jay

Thanks
Bin
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Leafe [mailto:ed@leafe.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 10:49 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively
distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On Aug 27, 2016, at 12:18 PM, HU, BIN bh526r@att.combh526r@att.com wrote:

From telco perspective, those are the areas that allow innovation, and provide telco customers with new types of services.

We need innovation, starting from not limiting ourselves from bringing new idea and new use cases, and bringing those impossibility to reality.

There is innovation in OpenStack, and there is innovation in things built on top of OpenStack. We are simply trying to keep the two layers from getting confused.

-- Ed Leafe


____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

--
gord


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Aug 29, 2016 by gordon_chung (19,300 points)   2 3 10
0 votes

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 1:27 PM, gordon chung gord@live.ca wrote:
just to clarify, what 'innovation' do you believe is required to enable you
to build on top of OpenStack. what are the feature gaps you are proposing?
let's avoid defining "the cloud" since that will give you 1000 different
answers if you ask 1000 different people.*

One idea I hear fairly often is having a couple of hypervisors in say
a single store or some other customer premise, but not wanting to also
run an OpenStack control plane there. If we are talking about a
hypervisor level, not some other unknown but smaller IoTs...uh thing,
does that make more sense from a OpenStack + vCPE context? Or do some
think that is out of scope for OpenStack's mission as well?

Thanks,
Curtis.

  • actually you'll get 100 answers and the rest will say: "i don't know."

On 29/08/16 12:23 PM, HU, BIN wrote:

Please see inline [BH526R].

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 3:48 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively
distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On 08/27/2016 11:16 AM, HU, BIN wrote:

The challenge in OpenStack is how to enable the innovation built on top of
OpenStack.

No, that's not the challenge for OpenStack.

That's like saying the challenge for gasoline is how to enable the
innovation of a jet engine.

[BH526R] True. 87 gas or diesel certainly cannot be used in any jet engine.
While Jet A-1 and Jet B fuel are widely used for jet engine today,
innovation of a new generation of jet engine may require an innovation of
new type of aviation fuel.

So telco use cases is not only the innovation built on top of
OpenStack. Instead, telco use cases, e.g. Gluon (NFV networking), vCPE
Cloud, Mobile Cloud, Mobile Edge Cloud, brings the needed requirement
for innovation in OpenStack itself. If OpenStack don't address those
basic requirements,

That's the thing, Bin, those are not "basic" requirements. The Telco vCPE
and Mobile "Edge cloud" (hint: not a cloud) use cases are asking for
fundamental architectural and design changes to the foundational components
of OpenStack. Instead of Nova being designed to manage a bunch of hardware
in a relatively close location (i.e. a datacenter or multiple datacenters),
vCPE is asking for Nova to transform itself into a micro-agent that can be
run on an Apple Watch and do things in resource-constrained environments
that it was never built to do.

[BH526R] So we have 2 choices here - either to explicitly exclude telco
requirement from OpenStack, and clearly indicate that telco needs to work on
its own "telco stack"; or to allow telco to innovate within OpenStack
through perhaps a new type of "telco nova" and/or "telco Neutron". Which way
do you suggest?

And, honestly, I have no idea what Gluon is trying to do. Ian sent me some
information a while ago on it. I read it. I still have no idea what Gluon is
trying to accomplish other than essentially bypassing Neutron entirely.
That's not "innovation". That's subterfuge.

[BH526R] Thank you for recognizing you don't know Gluon. Certainly the
perception of "bypassing Neutron entirely" is incorrect. You are very
welcome to join our project and meeting so that you can understand more of
what Gluon is. We are also happy to set up specific meetings with you to
discuss it too. Just let me know which way prefer. We are looking for you to
participate in Gluon project and meeting.

[BH526R] On the other hand, I also try to understand why "bypassing Neutron
entirely" is not an innovation. Neutron is not perfect. (I don't mean Gluon
here, but) if there is an innovation that can replace Neutron entirely,
everyone should be happy. Just like automobile bypassed carriage wagon
entirely.

the innovation will never happen on top of OpenStack.

Sure it will. AT&T and BT and other Telcos just need to write their own
software that runs their proprietary vCPE software distribution mechanism,
that's all. The OpenStack community shouldn't be relied upon to create
software that isn't applicable to general cloud computing and cloud
management platforms.

[BH526R] If I understand correctly, this suggestion excludes telco from
OpenStack entirely. That's fine.

An example is - self-driving car is built on top of many technologies, such
as sensor/camera, AI, maps, middleware etc. All innovations in each
technology (sensor/camera, AI, map, etc.) bring together the innovation of
self-driving car.

Yes, indeed, but the people who created the self-driving car software didn't
ask the people who created the cameras to write the software for them that
does the self-driving.

[BH526R] It's actually the other way around. Furthermore, camera/sensor
industry does see the need, and VC's funding has been dramatically increased
to invest in camera/sensor, map, AI areas. And the startups in those areas
are the fastest growing areas. Those investments and innovations accelerate
the maturity of self-driving cars.

WE NEED INNOVATION IN OPENSTACK in order to enable the innovation built on
top of OpenStack.

You are defining "innovation" in an odd way, IMHO. "Innovation" for the vCPE
use case sounds a whole lot like "rearchitect your entire software stack so
that we don't have to write much code that runs on set-top boxes."

[BH526R] Certainly it is misunderstanding. "Rearcihtect" may be needed.
However, if the "telco Nova" and "telco Neutron" concept and components can
be allowed for us telco to innovate within OpenStack, we will write the code
and do the rest of work. (But prior suggestion excludes us telco entirely,
if I understand correctly.)

Just being honest,
-jay

Thanks
Bin
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Leafe [mailto:ed@leafe.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 10:49 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][massively
distributed][architecture]Coordination between actions/WGs

On Aug 27, 2016, at 12:18 PM, HU, BIN bh526r@att.com wrote:

From telco perspective, those are the areas that allow innovation, and
provide telco customers with new types of services.

We need innovation, starting from not limiting ourselves from bringing new
idea and new use cases, and bringing those impossibility to reality.

There is innovation in OpenStack, and there is innovation in things built on
top of OpenStack. We are simply trying to keep the two layers from getting
confused.

-- Ed Leafe


____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

--
gord


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

--
Blog: serverascode.com


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Aug 29, 2016 by Curtis (4,180 points)   2 4
...