Bob and Kyle, Thanks for your review. We looked at this option and it seems it might meet our needs. Here is what we intend to do:
Let's say we have three racks (each rack supports three VLANs - 100, 200 and 300). We create the following config file for the neutron server tenant_network_type = vlan network_vlan_ranges = physnet1:100:300 network_vlan_ranges = phynet2:100:300 network_vlan_ranges = phynet3:100:300 integration_bridge = br-int bridge_mappings = physnet1:br-eth1, physnet2:br-eth1, physnet3:br-eth1 Is this what you meant? Vinay On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Robert Kukura <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/09/2014 12:56 PM, Kyle Mestery wrote: > > On Feb 6, 2014, at 5:24 PM, Vinay Bannai <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hello Folks, > >> > >> We are running into a situation where we are not able to create > multiple provider networks with the same VLAN id. We would like to propose > a solution to remove this restriction through a configuration option. This > approach would not conflict with the present behavior where it is not > possible to create multiple provider networks with the same VLAN id. > >> > >> The changes should be minimal and would like to propose it for the next > summit. The use case for this need is documented in the blueprint > specification. > >> Any feedback or comments are welcome. > >> > >> > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/duplicate-providernet-vlans > >> > > Hi Vinay: > > > > This problem seems straightforward enough, though currently you are right > > in that we don't allow multiple Neutron networks to have the same > segmentation > > ID. I've added myself as approver for this BP and look forward to further > > discussions of this before and during the upcoming Summit! > > Multiple networks with network_type of 'vlan' are already allowed to > have the same segmentation ID with the ml2, openvswitch, or linuxbridge > plugins - the networks just need to have different physical_network > names. If they have the same network_type, physical_network, and > segmentation_id, they are the same network. What else would distinguish > them from each other? > > Could your use case be addressed by simply using different > physical_network names for each rack? This would provide independent > spaces of segmentation_ids for each. > > -Bob > > > > > Thanks! > > Kyle > > > >> Thanks > >> -- > >> Vinay Bannai > >> Email: [email protected] > >> Google Voice: 415 938 7576 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Vinay Bannai Email: [email protected] Google Voice: 415 938 7576
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
