Comment 32 for bug 1375625

Thank you Armando for comment #31 which was an extremely helpful summary of the status quo! Has anything significant changed since you wrote that in April?

I will be at the Atlanta PTG and I'm very keen to meet up to discuss how we can make progress on this. Until now SUSE has been using a completely different approach to neutron HA which has the capability for fencing to avoid the split brain scenario, but has its own drawbacks. I'd be keen to see us converge on an upstream best-of-breed solution.

After some brief chats with Rossella, I got the impression that a reasonable approach might be to introduce a driver-based architecture to the HA code, so that there is one driver for keepalived, and then another one could be added for Pacemaker which could harness Pacemaker's STONITH capabilities. Does this sound plausible?