On 18 December 2013 14:10, Shixiong Shang <sparkofwisdom.cl...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi, Ian:
>
> I won’t say the intent here is to replace dnsmasq-mode-keyword BP.
> Instead, I was trying to leverage and enhance those definitions so when
> dnsmasq is launched, it knows which mode it should run in.
>
> That being said, I see the value of your points and I also had lengthy
> discussion with Randy regarding this. We did realize that the keyword
> itself may not be sufficient to properly configure dnsmasq.
>

I think the point is that the attribute on whatever object (subnet or
router) that defines the behaviour should define the behaviour, in
precisely the terms you're talking about, and then we should find the
dnsmasq options to suit.  Talking to Sean, he's good with this too, so
we're all working to the same ends and it's just a matter of getting code
in.


> Let us discuss that on Thursday’s IRC meeting.
>

Not sure if I'll be available or not this Thursday, unfortunately.  I'll
try to attend but I can't make promises.

Randy and I had a quick glance over your document. Much of it parallels the
> work we did on our POC last summer, and is now being addressed across
> multiple BP being implemented by ourselves or with Sean Collins and IBM
> team's work. I will take a closer look and provide my comments.
>

That's great.  I'm not wedded to the details in there, I'm actually more
interested that we've covered everything.

If you have blueprint references, add them as comments - the
ipv6-feature-parity BP could do with work and if we get the links together
in one place we can update it.
-- 
Ian.
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to