Have we found the last of them? I wonder. I suppose any higher level
service like a router that needs to create ports under the hood (under
the API) will have this problem. The DVR fip namespace creation comes
to mind. It will create a port to use as the external gateway port
for that
the
weekend, so I will be looking at it today (hopefully).
John
On 4/8/15, 11:26 AM, Carl Baldwin c...@ecbaldwin.net wrote:
I will not be available to chair or attend the L3 sub team meeting
tomorrow. Are others okay with canceling the meeting? Let me know if
you have something to discuss
I will not be available to chair or attend the L3 sub team meeting
tomorrow. Are others okay with canceling the meeting? Let me know if
you have something to discuss.
Carl
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for
Akihiro,
If we go with the empty extension you proposed in the patch will that be
acceptable?
We've got to stop killing new functionality on the very last day like this
. It just kills progress. This proposal isn't new.
Carl
On Mar 30, 2015 11:37 AM, Akihiro Motoki amot...@gmail.com wrote:
for
understanding.
Akihiro
2015-03-31 5:28 GMT+09:00 Carl Baldwin c...@ecbaldwin.net:
Akihiro,
If we go with the empty extension you proposed in the patch will that be
acceptable?
We've got to stop killing new functionality on the very last day like this .
It just kills progress. This proposal isn't
Yesterday, I got looking at another option that I had completely
forgotten about. It is allow_overlapping_ips, set in neutron.conf
and defaults to False. It appears that when it is False, Neutron
doesn't allow any overlapping IPs throughout the deployment, across
all networks. My guess is that
Kevin,
Thank you for your valuable insight here. Comments inline...
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a nice option for smaller deployments that didn't need the
complexity of NAT. From a custom L3 plugin perspective, it also eliminated
any single
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 8:56 AM, John Belamaric jbelama...@infoblox.com wrote:
On 3/22/15, 8:05 PM, Ian Wells ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk wrote:
Seems to me that an address pool corresponds to a network area that you can
route across (because routing only works over a network with unique
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:04 PM, John Davidge (jodavidg)
jodav...@cisco.com wrote:
The above blueprint outlines an admin-configurable global default pool to
be used in the case of a user calling subnet-create without specifying a
CIDR or subnet-pool ID. If the OpenStack environment has been
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 8:52 AM, John Belamaric jbelama...@infoblox.com wrote:
On 3/21/15, 9:10 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
If we feel a need for specifying the relative position of gateway address
and allocation pools when creating a subnet from a pool which will pick a
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
I think the goal of subnet pools is to use these environments as units of
isolations and ensure no overlapping CIDRs there. However, since there is
no way to identify such environments at the API layers, API clients
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
Actually, I don't see this as a big deal or a failure. In fact, it may be
quite common and useful for a given driver to store some state in its own
tables (like the reference driver is doing). The primary goal is to
part? Am I alone in this?
Carl
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
What if we just call it 'address_index' and make it an integer representing
the offset from the network start address?
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Carl Baldwin c...@ecbaldwin.net wrote
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Sean M. Collins s...@coreitpro.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 06:45:59AM PDT, John Davidge (jodavidg) wrote:
In the IPv6 meeting yesterday you mentioned doing this
with an extension rather than modifying the core API. Could you go into
some detail about how
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
How would you represent that you want the last address in a /26 network if
you don't know what address range you are getting? 0.0.0.63? That seems
pretty confusing when the resulting address turns out to be 192.168.10.191.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
2) Is the action of creating a subnet from a pool better realized as a
different way of creating a subnet, or should there be some sort of
pool action? Eg.:
POST /subnet_pools/my_pool_id/subnet
{'prefix_len': 24}
which
+1 Would like to hear feedback hoping that deprecation is viable.
Carl
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Assaf Muller amul...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
The use_namespaces option in the L3 and DHCP Neutron agents controls if you
can create multiple routers and DHCP networks managed
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
What about this instead?
POST /v2.0/subnets
{
'network_id': 'meh',
'gateway_ip_template': '*.*.*.1'
'prefix_len': 24,
'pool_id': 'some_pool'
}
At least that way it's clear the gateway attribute is not an IP,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought about doing *s but in the world of Classless Inter-Domain
Routing where not all networks are /24, /16, or /8 it seemed a bit
imprecise. But, maybe that doesn't matter.
So do a CIDR host address: 0.0.0.1/24 can
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com wrote:
Template is totally the wrong word. It is a host address without a network.
The prefix is there for the same purpose, to OR it back into a network
address.
I just want us to stop inventing things that already exist. You
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
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?
From
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/20/2015 02:51 PM, Carl Baldwin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
What about this instead?
POST /v2.0/subnets
{
'network_id': 'meh',
'gateway_ip_template': '*.*.*.1
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
How is 0.0.0.1 a host address? That isn't a valid IP address, AFAIK.
It isn't a valid *IP* address without the network part. However, it
can be referred to as the host address on the network or the host
part of the IP address.
On Mar 15, 2015 6:42 PM, Salvatore Orlando
* the ML2 plugin overrides several methods from the base db class. From
what I gather from unit tests results, we have not yet refactored it. I
think to provide users something usable in Kilo we should ensure the ML2
plugin at least works with the IPAM
Here is an update from our discussion this morning in IRC [1]. The
discussion involved mainly Pavel, Salvatore, and me.
We first discussed testing the integration of Salvatore's work [2] on
the reference driver with Pavel's work to load a driver [3] and
refactor the db_base_plugin [4]. Pavel
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Ryan Moats rmo...@us.ibm.com wrote:
While I'd personally like to see this be restricted (Carl's position), I
know
of at least one existence proof where management applications are doing
precisely what Gabriel is suggesting - reusing the same address range to
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:54 PM, John Belamaric jbelama...@infoblox.com wrote:
I was proposing that the reference driver not support it either, and we
only handle that use case via the non-pluggable implementation in Kilo,
waiting until Liberty to handle it in the pluggable implementation.
...@infoblox.com wrote:
On 3/12/15, 12:46 AM, Carl Baldwin c...@ecbaldwin.net wrote:
When talking with external IPAM to get a subnet, Neutron will pass
both the cidr as the primary identifier and the subnet_id as an
alternate identifier. External systems that do not allow overlap can
Recall that IPAM driver
Honestly, I'm a little frustrated that this is coming up now when we
tried very hard to discuss this during the spec review and we thought
we got to a resolution. It seems a little late to go back to the
drawing board.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Tidwell, Ryan ryan.tidw...@hp.com wrote:
With implicit allocations, the thinking is that this is where a subnet is
created in a backward-compatible way with no subnetpool_id and the subnets
API’s continue to work as they always have.
Correct.
In the case of a
tenants and support the isolation
of these address spaces. The IPAM rework will support this.
Carl Baldwin
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Miguel Ángel Ajo majop...@redhat.com wrote:
a) What if the subnet pools go into an external network, so, the gateway is
predefined and external, we may want to be able to specify it, we could
assume the convention that we’re going to expect the gateway to be
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Gabriel Bezerra
gabri...@lsd.ufcg.edu.br wrote:
Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
I'd vote for allowing against such restriction, but throwing an error in
case of creating a router between the subnets.
I can imagine a tenant running multiple
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
I guess that frustration has now become part of the norm for Openstack.
It is not the first time I frustrate people because I ask to reconsider
decisions approved in specifications.
I'm okay revisiting decisions.
+1
On Mar 4, 2015 12:44 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
I'd like to propose that we add Ihar Hrachyshka to the Neutron core
reviewer team. Ihar has been doing a great job reviewing in Neutron as
evidence by his stats [1]. Ihar is the Oslo liaison for Neutron, he's been
doing a
jOn Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
Lazy-Stacker summary:
I am doing some work on Neutron IPAM code for IP Allocation, and I need to
found whether it's better to use db locking queries (SELECT ... FOR UPDATE)
or some sort of non-blocking algorithm.
It doesn't support this at this time. There are no current plans to
make it work. I'm curious to know how you would like for this to work
in your deployment.
Carl
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:32 AM, NAPIERALA, MARIA H mn1...@att.com wrote:
Does Neutron router support ECMP across multiple static
I must have archived this on accident. Sorry to not respond earlier.
Comments inline...
On Feb 12, 2015 6:40 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
I have updated the patch; albeit not complete yet it's kind of closer to
be an allocator decent enough to replace the built-in logic.
I
On Feb 13, 2015 5:54 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
- Considering an alternative to availability ranges. Pre-generation of IP
entries is unpractical (think IPv6), so that's not an option.
Unfortunately, I have not yet explored in detail this route.
The availability range stuff
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
- I agree with Carl that the IPAM driver should not have explicit code paths
for autoaddress subnets, such as DHCPv6 stateless ones. In that case, the
consumer of the driver will generate the address and then to the
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
The patch Kevin points out increased the lease to 24 hours (which I agree is
as arbitrary as 2 minutes, 8 minutes, or 1 century) because it introduced
use of DHCPRELEASE message in the agent, which is supported by
manager defer_apply() code isn't
quite right.
-Brian
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Brian Haley brian.ha...@hp.com
mailto:brian.ha...@hp.com
mailto:brian.ha...@hp.com mailto:brian.ha...@hp.com wrote:
On 01/22/2015 10:17 AM, Carl Baldwin wrote:
I
I think this warrants a bug report. Could you file one with what you
know so far?
Carl
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Brian Haley brian.ha...@hp.com wrote:
On 01/21/2015 02:29 PM, Xavier León wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Brian Haley brian.ha...@hp.com wrote:
On 01/20/2015 09:20
+1
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
The last time we looked at core reviewer stats was in December [1]. In
looking at the current stats, I'm going to propose some changes to the core
team. Reviews are the most important part of being a core reviewer, so
I added a link to @Jack's post to the ML to the bug report [1]. I am
willing to support @Itsuro with reviews of the implementation and am
willing to consult if you need and would like to ping me.
Carl
[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1408488
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 7:49 AM, McCann,
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
If the new requirement is expressed in the neutron packages for the distro,
wouldn't it be transparent to the operators?
I think the difficulty first lies with the distros. If the required
new version isn't in an older
Miguel,
Thanks again for taking this on. I went looking for the rootwrap
daemon code today in gerrit and found it here [1]. I can allocate
some review cycles to help get this merged early in the cycle. Please
keep us posted on your progress refreshing the code.
Carl
[1]
Itsuro,
It would be desirable to be able to be hide an agent from scheduling
but no one has stepped up to make this happen. Come to think of it,
I'm not sure that a bug or blueprint has been filed yet to address it
though it is something that I've wanted for a little while now.
Carl
On Mon,
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Jeremy Stanley fu...@yuggoth.org wrote:
On 2014-12-30 09:46:35 -0500 (-0500), David Kranz wrote:
[...]
Can some one explain when we should *not* use -R after doing 'git
commit --amend'?
[...]
In the standard workflow this should never be necessary. The
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Jeremy Stanley fu...@yuggoth.org wrote:
On 2014-12-30 12:31:35 -0500 (-0500), David Kranz wrote:
[...]
1. This is really a UI issue, and one that is experienced by many.
What is desired is an option to look at different revisions of the
patch that show only
The L3 sub team meeting [1] will not be held until the 8th of January,
2015. Enjoy your time off. I will try to move some of the
refactoring patches along as I can but will be down to minimal hours.
Carl
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron-L3-Subteam
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Thomas Maddox
thomas.mad...@rackspace.com wrote:
Hey all,
It seems I missed the Kilo proposal deadline for Neutron, unfortunately, but
I still wanted to propose this spec for Neutron and get feedback/approval,
sooner rather than later, so I can begin working
We also spent a half day progressing the Ipam work and made a plan to move
forward.
Carl
On Dec 10, 2014 4:16 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
The Neutron mid-cycle [1] is now complete, I wanted to let everyone know
how it went. Thanks to all who attended, we got a lot done. I admit
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Miguel Ángel Ajo majop...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all!
It would be great if you could use this thread to post hot reviews on
stuff
that it’s being worked out during the mid-cycle, where others from different
timezones could participate.
I think we've used the
For the next few weeks, we'll be tackling L3 agent restructuring [1]
in earnest. This will require some heavy lifting, especially
initially, in the l3_agent.py file. Because of this, I'd like to ask
that we not approve any non-critical changes to the L3 agent that are
unrelated to this
Ryan,
I have been working with the L3 sub team in this direction. Progress has
been slow because of other priorities but we have made some. I have
written a blueprint detailing some changes needed to the code to enable the
flexibility to one day run glaring ups on an l3 routed network [1].
+1 I've been meaning to say something like this but never got around
to it. Thanks for speaking up.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Tony Breeds t...@bakeyournoodle.com wrote:
Hello Wiki masters,
Is there anyway to extend the session length on the wiki? In my current
work flow I login to
Don,
Could the spec linked to your BP be moved to the specs repository?
I'm hesitant to start reading it as a google doc when I know I'm going
to want to make comments and ask questions.
Carl
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Don Kehn dek...@gmail.com wrote:
If this shows up twice sorry for the
Paul, I worked much of this in to my blueprint [1].
Carl
[1]
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/131535/4/specs/kilo/restructure-l3-agent.rst
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Paul Michali (pcm) p...@cisco.com wrote:
Hi,
I talked to Carl today to discuss the L3 agent restructuring and the
The Neutron L3 team will meet [1] tomorrow at the regular time. I'd
like to discuss the progress of the functional tests for the L3 agent
to see how we can get that on track. I don't think we need to wait
for the BP to merge before get something going.
We will likely not have a meeting next
At the recent summit, we held a session about debt repayment in the
Neutron agents [1]. Some work was identified for the L2 agent. We
had a discussion in the Neutron meeting today about bootstrapping that
work.
The first order of business will be to generate a blueprint
specification for the
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Jeremy Stanley fu...@yuggoth.org wrote:
This has come up before... if you don't want to see stale patches
you can use Gerrit queries or custom dashboards to only show you
patches with recent activity. If all patches older than some
specific date get abandoned,
+1. I always hesitate to abandon someone's patch because it is so
personal. The auto-expire is impersonal and procedural. I agree that
1 week is too soon. Give it at least a month.
Abandoned patches that have some importance shouldn't ever really be
lost. They should be linked to bug reports
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
No worries,
you get one day off over the weekend. And you also get to choose if it's
saturday or sunday.
I didn't think it was going to be a whole day.
Salvatore
On 13 November 2014 20:05, Kevin Benton
Hi Chuck,
I should probably chime in since I made the initial comment in the
first place. I hate to derail the progress you've made with the
blueprint you have up now but this is worth some discussion.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Chuck Carlino chuckjcarl...@gmail.com wrote:
It has been
Reminder that the L3 subteam meeting will be tomorrow at 1500 UTC.
Remember that daylight savings time may have ended since the last
meeting and the meeting will come an hour earlier.
I'd like to talk about the subjects discussed at the summit.
Specifically, we had design sessions about paying
I don't think I know the precise answer to your question. My best guess is
that floating ips were one of the initial core L3 features implemented
before other advanced services existed. Implementing them in this way may
have been the path of least resistance at the time.
Are you suggesting a
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/odl-neutron-plugin
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Richard Woo richardwoo2...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, what is etherpad link for opendaylight neutron plugin design session?
http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/event/5a430f46842e9239ea6c29a69cbe4e84#.VFdhdPTF-0E
schedule. I propose
Wednesday afternoon.
If Carl Baldwin is agree, we can talk about it also during the open
discussion of today's L3 subteam meeting.
[1]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125401/
[
2]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125401/
[3]: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/bgp-vpn
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the simplest use case is just that a provider doesn't want to deal
with extending L2 domains all over their datacenter.
This is similar to a goal behind [1] and [2]. I'm trying to figure
out where the commonalities
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Rohit Agarwalla (roagarwa)
roaga...@cisco.com wrote:
Agreed. The way I'm thinking about this is that tenants shouldn't care what
the underlying implementation is - L2 or L3. As long as the connectivity
requirements are met using the model/API, end users should
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:34 AM, Simon Pasquier spasqu...@mirantis.com wrote:
Hello Itzik,
This has been discussed lately on this ML. Please see
https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1335375.
This is a good example that any create, update, or delete of a SG rule
can expose this issue. This
I think I'd suggest opening a new bug for FWaaS since it is a
different component with different code. It doesn't seem natural to
extend the scope of this bug to include it.
Carl
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Itzik Brown itbr...@redhat.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Carl
Hi Elena,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Elena Ezhova eezh...@mirantis.com wrote:
Kill the connection using conntrack
The problem here is that it is sometimes impossible to tell which
connection should be killed. For example there may be two instances running
in different
Miguel Ángel,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
mangel...@redhat.com wrote:
Temporarily removing this entry doesn't seem like a good solution
to me as we can't really know how long do we need to remove this rule to
induce the connection to close at both ends (it will
+1
It would be great to know where to go in the airport and what to ask
for for a good 1 - 1.5 week prepaid GSM data plan.
Carl
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Mathieu Gagné mga...@iweb.com wrote:
On 2014-10-14 11:35 AM, Adrien Cunin wrote:
Hi everyone,
Inspired by the travels tips
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
Assigning a distinct ct zone to each port sounds more scalable. This should
keep the number of zones per host
Agree that zones could be a good solution to this problem. +1 to zone
/ port for scalability. Though it
I just had a conflict come up. I won't be able to make it to the meeting.
I wanted to announce that IPAM is very likely topic for a design
session at the summit. I will spend some time reviewing the old
etherpads starting here [1] since the topic was set aside early in
Juno.
Carl
[1]
Kyle,
This works for me. My only comment is that linking sub team pages
from the Neutron meeting page served a dual purpose. It attached it
to the agenda -- which is now deprecated -- and it served as sort of
an anchor for the sub team in to the Neutron team on the wiki. At
least for the L3
] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/NeutronSubTeams
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Carl Baldwin c...@ecbaldwin.net wrote:
Kyle,
This works for me. My only comment is that linking sub team pages
from the Neutron meeting page served a dual purpose. It attached it
to the agenda -- which is now
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:05 AM, David Stanek dsta...@dstanek.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I'd be willing to head up the working group... or at least
participate
The Neutron L3 Subteam will meet tomorrow at the regular time and
place. The agenda and details are posted [1].
I think the RC1 ship will have sailed for most potential fixes by then
so I'd like to take some time during the meeting tomorrow to chat
about the work that is coming up for Kilo.
I have a conflict today. Keep working on RC1.
Carl
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Hi,
There is current work in review to use conntrack to terminate these
connections [1][2] much like you suggested. I hope to get this in to
RC1 but it needs another iteration.
For Kilo, I'd like to explore stateless forwarding for floating ips.
Since conntrack is the root of the security issue
Hi,
Neutron would like to move the distributed virtual router (DVR)
tempest job, currently in the experimental queue, to the check queue
[1]. It will still be non-voting for the time being. Could infra
have a look? We feel that running this on all Neutron patches is
important to maintain the
Han
On 09/04/2014 06:06 AM, Carl Baldwin wrote:
It should be noted that send_arp_for_ha is a configuration option
that preceded the more recent in-progress work to add VRRP controlled
HA to Neutron's router. The option was added, I believe, to cause the
router to send (default) 3 GARPs
It should be noted that send_arp_for_ha is a configuration option
that preceded the more recent in-progress work to add VRRP controlled
HA to Neutron's router. The option was added, I believe, to cause the
router to send (default) 3 GARPs to the external gateway if the router
was removed from one
Kyle,
These are three good ones. I've been reviewing the HA ones and have had an
eye on the other two.
1300 is a bit early but I'll plan to be there.
Carl
On Aug 26, 2014 4:04 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
I'd like to propose a meeting at 1300UTC on Thursday in
I put this in the review but will repeat it here. +1 to adding the
dependency with the tests that you've written to require it when those
tests have been reviewed and accepted. I don't have an objection to
adding requests-mock as a test-requirement.
Carl
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Paul
The Neutron L3 Subteam will meet tomorrow at the regular time in
#openstack-meeting-3. The agenda [1] is posted, please update as
needed.
Carl
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron-L3-Subteam#Agenda
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
Hi all,
This is intended for those readers interested in reviewing and soon
merging the HA routers implementation for Juno. Assaf Muller has
written a blog [1] about this new feature which serves as a good
overview. It will be useful for reviewers to get up to speed and I
recommend reading it
+1
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
Per this week's Neutron meeting [1], it was decided that offering a
rotating meeting slot for the weekly Neutron meeting would be a good
thing. This will allow for a much easier time for people in
Asia/Pacific
The Neutron L3 Subteam will meet tomorrow at the regular time in
#openstack-meeting-3. The agenda [1] is posted, please update as
needed.
Carl
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron-L3-Subteam#Agenda
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
kazuhiro MIYASHITA,
I have done a lot of thinking about this. I have a blueprint on hold
until Kilo for Neutron/Designate integration [1].
However, my blueprint doesn't quite address what you are going after
here. An assumption that I have made is that Designate is an external
or internet
Apologies for the late notice...
The Neutron L3 Subteam will meet tomorrow at the regular time in
#openstack-meeting-3. The agenda [1] is posted, please update as needed.
Carl
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron-L3-Subteam#Agenda
___
I have a spec proposal in play that crosses the Nova/Neutron boundary.
I split it in to two specs: a nova spec [1] and a Neutron spec [2].
There is a little duplication between the two at a high level but not
in the details. Each of the specs references the other at various
spots in the text and
Hi,
I noticed this yesterday afternoon. I tried to run pep8 and unit
tests on a patch I was going to submit. It failed with an error that
no package satisfying oslo.config could be found [1]. I went to pypi
and saw that the version appears to be available [2] but still
couldn't install it.
I
).
It fixed this problem for me.
Regards,
Alexei
On 05/08/14 23:00, Carl Baldwin wrote:
Hi,
I noticed this yesterday afternoon. I tried to run pep8 and unit
tests on a patch I was going to submit. It failed with an error that
no package satisfying oslo.config could be found [1]. I went
Armando's point #2 is a good one. I see that we should have raised
awareness of this more than we did. The bulk of the discussion and
the development work moved over to the oslo team and I focused energy
on other things. What I didn't realize was that the importance of
this work to Neutron did
The Neutron L3 Subteam will meet tomorrow at the regular time in
#openstack-meeting-3. The agenda [1] is posted, please update as
needed. See you there!
The initial DVR implementation has merged as of today. Please review
the notes and log from the DVR meeting today [2].
I will be sure to
201 - 300 of 391 matches
Mail list logo
