Thank you shihanzhang!, I can't believe I didn't realize the ipset part spec was accepted I live on my own bubble... I will be reviewing and testing/helping on that part too during the next few days, I was too concentrated in the RPC part.
Best regards, ----- Original Message ----- > hi neutroner! > my patch about BP: > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack/?searchtext=add-ipset-to-security > need install ipset in devstack, I have commit the patch: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113453/, who can help me review it, thanks > very much! > > Best regards, > shihanzhang > > > > > At 2014-08-21 10:47:59, "Martinx - ジェームズ" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > +1 "NFTablesDriver"! > > Also, NFTables, AFAIK, improves IDS systems, like Suricata, for example: > https://home.regit.org/2014/02/suricata-and-nftables/ > > Then, I'm wondering here... What benefits might come for OpenStack Nova / > Neutron, if it comes with a NFTables driver, instead of the current > IPTables?! > > * E fficient Security Group design? > * Better FWaaS, maybe with NAT(44/66) support? > * Native support for IPv6, with the defamed NAT66 built-in, simpler "Floating > IP" implementation, for both v4 and v6 networks under a single > implementation ( I don't like NAT66, I prefer a `routed Floating IPv6` > version ) ? > * Metadata over IPv6 still using NAT(66) ( I don't like NAT66 ), single > implementation? > * Suricata-as-a-Service?! > > It sounds pretty cool! :-) > > > On 20 August 2014 23:16, Baohua Yang < [email protected] > wrote: > > > > Great！ > We met similar problems. > The current mechanisms produce too many iptables rules, and it's hard to > debug. > Really look forward to seeing a more efficient security group design. > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Kyle Mestery < [email protected] > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:30 AM, shihanzhang < [email protected] > wrote: > > > > With the deployment 'nova + neutron + openvswitch', when we bulk create > > about 500 VM with a default security group, the CPU usage of neutron-server > > and openvswitch agent is very high, especially the CPU usage of openvswitch > > agent will be 100%, this will cause creating VMs failed. > > > > With the method discussed in mailist: > > > > 1) ipset optimization ( https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100761/ ) > > > > 3) sg rpc optimization (with fanout) > > ( https://review.openstack.org/#/c/104522/ ) > > > > I have implement these two scheme in my deployment, when we again bulk > > create about 500 VM with a default security group, the CPU usage of > > openvswitch agent will reduce to 10%, even lower than 10%, so I think the > > iprovement of these two options are very efficient. > > > > Who can help us to review our spec? > > > This is great work! These are on my list of things to review in detail > soon, but given the Neutron sprint this week, I haven't had time yet. > I'll try to remedy that by the weekend. > > Thanks! > Kyle > > > Best regards, > > shihanzhang > > > > > > > > > > > > At 2014-07-03 10:08:21, "Ihar Hrachyshka" < [email protected] > wrote: > >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >>Hash: SHA512 > >> > >>Oh, so you have the enhancement implemented? Great! Any numbers that > >>shows how much we gain from that? > >> > >>/Ihar > >> > >>On 03/07/14 02:49, shihanzhang wrote: > >>> Hi, Miguel Angel Ajo! Yes, the ipset implementation is ready, today > >>> I will modify my spec, when the spec is approved, I will commit the > >>> codes as soon as possilbe! > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> At 2014-07-02 10:12:34, "Miguel Angel Ajo" < [email protected] > > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Nice Shihanzhang, > >>>> > >>>> Do you mean the ipset implementation is ready, or just the > >>>> spec?. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> For the SG group refactor, I don't worry about who does it, or > >>>> who takes the credit, but I believe it's important we address > >>>> this bottleneck during Juno trying to match nova's scalability. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, Miguel Ángel. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 07/02/2014 02:50 PM, shihanzhang wrote: > >>>>> hi Miguel Ángel and Ihar Hrachyshka, I agree with you that > >>>>> split the work in several specs, I have finished the work ( > >>>>> ipset optimization), you can do 'sg rpc optimization (without > >>>>> fanout)'. as the third part(sg rpc optimization (with fanout)), > >>>>> I think we need talk about it, because just using ipset to > >>>>> optimize security group agent codes does not bring the best > >>>>> results! > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards, shihanzhang. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> At 2014-07-02 04:43:24, "Ihar Hrachyshka" < [email protected] > > >>>>> wrote: > >>> On 02/07/14 10:12, Miguel Angel Ajo wrote: > >>> > >>>> Shihazhang, > >>> > >>>> I really believe we need the RPC refactor done for this cycle, > >>>> and given the close deadlines we have (July 10 for spec > >>>> submission and July 20 for spec approval). > >>> > >>>> Don't you think it's going to be better to split the work in > >>>> several specs? > >>> > >>>> 1) ipset optimization (you) 2) sg rpc optimization (without > >>>> fanout) (me) 3) sg rpc optimization (with fanout) (edouard, you > >>>> , me) > >>> > >>> > >>>> This way we increase the chances of having part of this for the > >>>> Juno cycle. If we go for something too complicated is going to > >>>> take more time for approval. > >>> > >>> > >>> I agree. And it not only increases chances to get at least some of > >>> those highly demanded performance enhancements to get into Juno, > >>> it's also "the right thing to do" (c). It's counterproductive to > >>> put multiple vaguely related enhancements in single spec. This > >>> would dim review focus and put us into position of getting > >>> 'all-or-nothing'. We can't afford that. > >>> > >>> Let's leave one spec per enhancement. @Shihazhang, what do you > >>> think? > >>> > >>> > >>>> Also, I proposed the details of "2", trying to bring awareness > >>>> on the topic, as I have been working with the scale lab in Red > >>>> Hat to find and understand those issues, I have a very good > >>>> knowledge of the problem and I believe I could make a very fast > >>>> advance on the issue at the RPC level. > >>> > >>>> Given that, I'd like to work on this specific part, whether or > >>>> not we split the specs, as it's something we believe critical > >>>> for neutron scalability and thus, *nova parity*. > >>> > >>>> I will start a separate spec for "2", later on, if you find it > >>>> ok, we keep them as separate ones, if you believe having just 1 > >>>> spec (for 1 & 2) is going be safer for juno-* approval, then we > >>>> can incorporate my spec in yours, but then > >>>> "add-ipset-to-security" is not a good spec title to put all this > >>>> together. > >>> > >>> > >>>> Best regards, Miguel Ángel. > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 07/02/2014 03:37 AM, shihanzhang wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> hi Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo! I agree with you and modify my > >>>>> spes, but I will also optimization the RPC from security group > >>>>> agent to neutron server. Now the modle is > >>>>> 'port[rule1,rule2...], port...', I will change it to 'port[sg1, > >>>>> sg2..]', this can reduce the size of RPC respose message from > >>>>> neutron server to security group agent. > >>>>> > >>>>> At 2014-07-01 09:06:17, "Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo" > >>>>> < [email protected] > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ok, I was talking with Édouard @ IRC, and as I have time to > >>>>>> work into this problem, I could file an specific spec for > >>>>>> the security group RPC optimization, a masterplan in two > >>>>>> steps: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1) Refactor the current RPC communication for > >>>>>> security_groups_for_devices, which could be used for full > >>>>>> syncs, etc.. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2) Benchmark && make use of a fanout queue per security > >>>>>> group to make sure only the hosts with instances on a > >>>>>> certain security group get the updates as they happen. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> @shihanzhang do you find it reasonable? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>>>> @Nachi: Yes that could a good improvement to factorize > >>>>>>>> the RPC > >>>>>>> mechanism. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Another idea: What about creating a RPC topic per > >>>>>>>> security group (quid of the > >>>>>>> RPC topic > >>>>>>>> scalability) on which an agent subscribes if one of its > >>>>>>>> ports is > >>>>>>> associated > >>>>>>>> to the security group? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards, Édouard. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> Hmm, Interesting, > >>> > >>>>>>> @Nachi, I'm not sure I fully understood: > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> SG_LIST [ SG1, SG2] SG_RULE_LIST = [SG_Rule1, SG_Rule2] .. > >>>>>>> port[SG_ID1, SG_ID2], port2 , port3 > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> Probably we may need to include also the SG_IP_LIST = > >>>>>>> [SG_IP1, SG_IP2] ... > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> and let the agent do all the combination work. > >>> > >>>>>>> Something like this could make sense? > >>> > >>>>>>> Security_Groups = {SG1:{IPs:[....],RULES:[....], > >>>>>>> SG2:{IPs:[....],RULES:[....]} } > >>> > >>>>>>> Ports = {Port1:[SG1, SG2], Port2: [SG1] .... } > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> @Edouard, actually I like the idea of having the agent > >>>>>>> subscribed to security groups they have ports on... That > >>>>>>> would remove the need to include all the security groups > >>>>>>> information on every call... > >>> > >>>>>>> But would need another call to get the full information of > >>>>>>> a set of security groups at start/resync if we don't > >>>>>>> already have any. > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:04 AM, shihanzhang < > >>>>>>> [email protected] > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> hi Miguel Ángel, I am very agree with you about the > >>>>>>>> following point: > >>>>>>>>> * physical implementation on the hosts (ipsets, > >>>>>>>>> nftables, ... ) > >>>>>>>> --this can reduce the load of compute node. > >>>>>>>>> * rpc communication mechanisms. > >>>>>>>> -- this can reduce the load of neutron server can you > >>>>>>>> help me to review my BP specs? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> At 2014-06-19 10:11:34, "Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo" < > >>>>>>> [email protected] > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi it's a very interesting topic, I was getting ready > >>>>>>>>> to raise the same concerns about our security groups > >>>>>>>>> implementation, > >>>>>>> shihanzhang > >>>>>>>>> thank you for starting this topic. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Not only at low level where (with our default security > >>>>>>>>> group rules -allow all incoming from 'default' sg- the > >>>>>>>>> iptable rules will grow in ~X^2 for a tenant, and, the > >>>>>>>>> "security_group_rules_for_devices" rpc call from > >>>>>>>>> ovs-agent to neutron-server grows to message sizes of > >>>>>>>>>> 100MB, > >>>>>>>>> generating serious scalability issues or > >>>>>>>>> timeouts/retries that totally break neutron service. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> (example trace of that RPC call with a few instances > >>>>>>>>> http://www.fpaste.org/104401/14008522/ ) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I believe that we also need to review the RPC calling > >>>>>>>>> mechanism for the OVS agent here, there are several > >>>>>>>>> possible approaches to > >>>>>>> breaking > >>>>>>>>> down (or/and CIDR compressing) the information we > >>>>>>>>> return via this > >>>>>>> api > >>>>>>>>> call. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So we have to look at two things here: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> * physical implementation on the hosts (ipsets, > >>>>>>>>> nftables, ... ) * rpc communication mechanisms. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best regards, Miguel Ángel. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ----- Mensaje original ----- > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Do you though about nftables that will replace > >>>>>>> {ip,ip6,arp,eb}tables? > >>>>>>>>>> It also based on the rule set mechanism. The issue > >>>>>>>>>> in that proposition, it's only stable since the > >>>>>>>>>> begin > >>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>>>>> year and on Linux kernel 3.13. But there lot of pros > >>>>>>>>>> I don't list here (leverage iptables > >>>>>>> limitation, > >>>>>>>>>> efficient update rule, rule set, standardization of > >>>>>>>>>> netfilter commands...). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Édouard. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:25 AM, henry hly < > >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] > wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> we have done some tests, but have different > >>>>>>>>>>> result: the > >>>>>>> performance is > >>>>>>>>>>> nearly the same for empty and 5k rules in iptable, > >>>>>>>>>>> but huge gap between enable/disable iptable hook > >>>>>>>>>>> on linux bridge > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:21 AM, shihanzhang < > >>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Now I have not get accurate test data, but I can > >>>>>>>>>>>> confirm the following points? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. In compute node, the iptable's chain of a VM > >>>>>>>>>>>> is liner, > >>>>>>> iptable > >>>>>>>>>>>> filter it one by one, if a VM in default > >>>>>>>>>>>> security group and this default security group > >>>>>>>>>>>> have many members, but ipset chain is set, the > >>>>>>>>>>>> time > >>>>>>> ipset > >>>>>>>>>>>> filter one and many member is not much > >>>>>>>>>>>> difference. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. when the iptable rule is very large, the > >>>>>>>>>>>> probability of > >>>>>>> failure > >>>>>>>>>>>> that iptable-save save the iptable rule is very > >>>>>>>>>>>> large. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> At 2014-06-19 10:55:56, "Kevin Benton" < > >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds like a good idea to handle some of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> performance > >>>>>>>>>>>>> issues until the ovs firewall can be > >>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented down the the line. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any performance comparisons? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2014 7:46 PM, "shihanzhang" < > >>>>>>> [email protected] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello all, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now in neutron, it use iptable implementing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> security > >>>>>>> group, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the performance of this implementation is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very poor, there > >>>>>>> is a bug: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1302272 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>to > >>>>>>> reflect this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem. In his test, w ith default security > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups(which has remote security group), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beyond 250-300 VMs, there were around 6k > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iptable rules > >>>>>>> on evry > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute node, although his patch can reduce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the processing time, but > >>>>>>> it don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve this problem fundamentally. I have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit a BP to solve this > >>>>>>> problem: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/add-ipset-to-security > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are other people interested in this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>>>> 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>>>> 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 > >>> > >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) > >>Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > >> > >>iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTtWPVAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57PyMH/3Honqp3NQN5d1crkgn2y4zR > >>IiMlTMoeloaLx84Fv7Ya44evA+ZX1dDIfozrig+/uuWlVXql4EIl9vcGQ2T0xvoE > >>WXo7eu6D4ysca1Bx0AAmNi3IY0jC3QP46V3slmOWYHW2GAwRrrWHLyuOfCubPros > >>7zlOEC5MRZsh1KY3fj+bX1a7dmR6QdKqnya/JdP8I0bkkYxOXAivX+gFJCTGeB23 > >>1Ss//rr781W9mynwB2rXssUQZU3ySK7PQmMEAVZUPkPAIzbtlTfq7nbV1GPzL3Di > >>/qEXL0cEx57fv9l8SvqYHqVpeh09dbh3h7kKKovwgNKCpiD1oMDoWgCS+PelZFc= > >>=TxAT > >>-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>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 > > > > -- > Best wishes! > Baohua > > _______________________________________________ > 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
