@ -28,22 +28,22 @@ neutrons are managed by the central neutron. As a result, in order to adapt
the central-local design and the amphorae mechanism of
Octavia, we plan to deploy LBaaS as follows. ::
+---------------------------+
| |
| Central Neutron |
| |
+---------------------------+
Central Region
+----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
| +----------------+ | | +----------------+ |
| | LBaaS Octavia | | | | LBaaS Octavia | |
| +----------------+ | | +----------------+ |
| +------+ +---------------+ | | +-------+ +---------------+ |
| | Nova | | Local Neutron | | | | Nova | | Local Neutron | |
| +------+ +---------------+ | | +-------+ +---------------+ |
+----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
Region One Region Two
+---------------------------+
| |
| Central Neutron |
| |
+---------------------------+
Central Region
+----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
| +----------------+ | | +----------------+ |
| | LBaaS Octavia | | | | LBaaS Octavia | |
| +----------------+ | | +----------------+ |
| +------+ +---------------+ | | +-------+ +---------------+ |
| | Nova | | Local Neutron | | | | Nova | | Local Neutron | |
| +------+ +---------------+ | | +-------+ +---------------+ |
+----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
Region One Region Two
As demonstrated in the figure above, for each region where a local neutron
is installed, admins can optionally choose to configure and install Octavia.
@ -96,25 +96,26 @@ LBaaS members in multiple regions
1. members in the same subnet yet locating in different regions
---------------------------------------------------------------
+-------------------------------+ +-----------------------+
| +---------------------------+ | | |
| | Amphora | | | |
| | | | | |
| | +-------+ +---------+ | | | |
| +--+ mgmt +--+ subnet1 +---+ | | |
| +-------+ +---------+ | | |
| | | |
| +--------------------------+ | | +-------------------+ |
| | +---------+ +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | |
| | | member1 | | member2 | | | | | | member3 | | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | |
| +--------------------------+ | | +-------------------+ |
| network1(subnet1) | | network1(subnet1) |
+-------------------------------+ +-----------------------+
Region One Region Two
Fig. 1. The scenario of balancing load across instances of one subnet which
reside in different regions.
As shown below. ::
+-------------------------------+ +-----------------------+
| +---------------------------+ | | |
| | Amphora | | | |
| | | | | |
| | +-------+ +---------+ | | | |
| +--+ mgmt +--+ subnet1 +---+ | | |
| +-------+ +---------+ | | |
| | | |
| +--------------------------+ | | +-------------------+ |
| | +---------+ +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | |
| | | member1 | | member2 | | | | | | member3 | | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | |
| +--------------------------+ | | +-------------------+ |
| network1(subnet1) | | network1(subnet1) |
+-------------------------------+ +-----------------------+
Region One Region Two
Fig. 1. The scenario of balancing load across instances of one subnet which
reside in different regions.
As shown in Fig. 1, suppose that a load balancer is created in Region one,
and hence a listener, a pool, and two members in subnet1. When adding an
@ -126,27 +127,28 @@ a pool.
2. members residing in different subnets and regions
----------------------------------------------------
+---------------------------------------+ +-----------------------+
| +-----------------------------------+ | | |
| | Amphora | | | |
| | | | | |
| | +---------+ +------+ +---------+ | | | |
| +-+ subnet2 +--+ mgmt +-+ subnet1 +-+ | | |
| +---------+ +------+ +---------+ | | |
| | | |
| +----------------------------------+ | | +-------------------+ |
| | | | | | | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | |
| | | member1 | | member2 | | | | | | member3 | | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | |
| | | | | | | |
| +----------------------------------+ | | +-------------------+ |
| network1(subnet1) | | network2(subnet2) |
+---------------------------------------+ +-----------------------+
Region One Region Two
Fig. 2. The scenario of balancing load across instances of different subnets
which reside in different regions as well.
As shown below. ::
+---------------------------------------+ +-----------------------+
| +-----------------------------------+ | | |
| | Amphora | | | |
| | | | | |
| | +---------+ +------+ +---------+ | | | |
| +-+ subnet2 +--+ mgmt +-+ subnet1 +-+ | | |
| +---------+ +------+ +---------+ | | |
| | | |
| +----------------------------------+ | | +-------------------+ |
| | | | | | | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | |
| | | member1 | | member2 | | | | | | member3 | | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | |
| | | | | | | |
| +----------------------------------+ | | +-------------------+ |
| network1(subnet1) | | network2(subnet2) |
+---------------------------------------+ +-----------------------+
Region One Region Two
Fig. 2. The scenario of balancing load across instances of different subnets
which reside in different regions as well.
As show in Fig. 2, supposing that a load balancer is created in region one, as
well as a listener, a pool, and two members in subnet1. When adding an instance
@ -180,4 +182,4 @@ Octavia, local neutron, and central neutron.
References
==========
None
None