Somehow, this thread hid from me for a couple of weeks. I just reviewed something relevant to this here [1]. It proposes adding tenant id to segment. But, it also enforces that tenant id is the same as that of the network owning the segment. So, I say why store it at all?
I would argue that subnet should also not have a tenant_id and should just inherit it from the network. Carl [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/331497/2/neutron/db/segments_db.py On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Henry Gessau <hen...@gessau.net> wrote: > Carl Baldwin <c...@ecbaldwin.net> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Henry Gessau <hen...@gessau.net> wrote: >>> Darek Smigiel <smigiel.dari...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> strange, that owner is not able to just get rid of *his* network and >>>> subnets. >>> >>> But not all the subnets are his, and consequently the network is partially >>> not >>> his. >> >> To me, this is a nonsensical outcome and tells me that subnets >> probably shouldn't really have owners distinct from the network's. > > Right. So are you saying we should prevent that? > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 __________________________________________________________________________ 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