On 03/11/2015 06:48 PM, John Belamaric wrote:
This has been settled and we're not moving forward with it for Kilo. I
agree tenants are an administrative concept, not a networking one so
using them for uniqueness doesn't really make sense.
In Liberty we are proposing a new grouping mechanism, as you call it,
specifically for the purpose of defining uniqueness - address scopes.
This would be owned by a tenant but could be shared across tenants. It's
still in the early stages of definition though, and more discussion is
needed but should probably wait until after Kilo is out!
This is a question purely out of curiousity. Why is Neutron averse to
the concept of using tenants as natural ways of dividing up the cloud --
which at its core means "multi-tenant", on-demand computing and networking?
Is this just due to a lack of traditional use of the term in networking
literature? Or is this something more deep-grained (architecturally)
than that?
Genuinely curious.
Best,
-jay
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
