es raised around the incubator were significant
>enough (around packaging, handling of updates needed for
>horizon/heat/celiometer, handling of multiple feature branches, etc) that
>we we will probably need a design session in paris before a consensus will
>emerge ar
Sumit
Thanks for initiating this and also good discussion today on the IRC.
My thoughts are that it is important to make this available to potential
users and customers as soon as possible so that we can get the necessary
feedback. Considering that the neutron cores and community are battling
nova
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> Adding the GBP extension to Neutron does not change the nature of the
>> software architecture of Neutron making it more or less monolithic.
>
>
> I agree with this statement...partially: the way GBP was developed is in
> accordance to the same
GBP is about networking policy and hence limited to networking constructs.
It enhances the networking constructs. Since it follows more or less the
plugin model, it is not in one monolithic module but fans out to the policy
module and is done via extension.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Arman
It sounds good
+1
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
wrote:
> Thanks Jay for your constructive feedback on this. I personally think
> that 'policy-target' is a good option. I am not sure what the rest of
> the team thinks, perhaps they can chime in.
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:43
s
out there are several people from different organizations working on GBP to
ensure stability and closely reviewed code is checked in.
I think both nova parity and GBP can go in parallel, hence my choice of
option 1
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> On 6 August 2014 17:34
It seems like Option 1 would be preferable. User can use this right away.
The code and to a large extent BP has gone through quite a bit of review
already so it seems to me that there actually going lot less than usual. I
dont see a whole of lot Con on this. Though there are still some issues
wit
Jay
Doesnt the current plugin model in neutron work the way you are saying. We
have a a core set of APIs that there is a reference model for and
individual vendors have substituted plugins that enhance and sometimes
replace networking component. GBP in that respect does not change. There is
a refer
Great to see the discussions on the ML.
Mohammad - Good summary.
I would like to make few points
1) The current GP API is tuned towards person deploying the application as
opposed to the networking person. This is probably a better way as one
starts to think about self service infrastructure mode
Aaron
One use case is that tenant would like to put all the servers in a single
broadcast domain (thus single IP/subnet domain). The servers can include
the 3 tier servers (web database and application server). Why would he do
that - Because it is simpler.
Then the tenant would like to put securi
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Mike Spreitzer's message of 2014-02-05 22:17:50 -0800:
> > > From: Prasad Vellanki
> > > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> > > ,
> > > D
Zane
Thanks for putting this together. This will guide us as we develop some
resources in Heat.
As chmouel said it would be great if this can be converted to blog article.
thanks
prasadv
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
> Zane Bitter writes:
>
> > As I said, figuring t
I have a question on agent as part of cfninit that communicates with heat
about config done state indication or config tool agent such as chef or
puppet communicating with chef server.
Since the VM resides on the data network, how does it reach the heat server
that is on openstack management netwo
Steve & Clint
That should work. We will look at implementing a resource that spins up a
shortlived VM for bootstrapping a service VM and informing configuration
server for further configuration.
thanks
prasadv
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Steven Dake wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 09:27 PM, Clint
work without password prompting. But I do see that ansible
and salt support username/password option.
If this would not work, I agree that the best option is to make them
support cfminit...
thanks
prasadv
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Prasad Vellanki <
prasad.vella...@oneconvergence.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Steven Dake wrote:
> that
Steve
Thanks for detailed email. Apologize for the delayed response but we have
been thinking about how does software config fit into configuring network
and service function devices. I agree with you that in general it is best
to get ap
Clint & Steve
One scenario we are trying to see is whether and how Heat software-config
enables deployment of images available from third party as virtual
appliances, providing network, security or acceleration capabilities. The
vendor in some cases might not allow rebuilding and/or may not hav
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Stephen Wong wrote:
> Hi Prasad,
>
> Thanks for the comments, please see responses inline.
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Prasad Vellanki
> wrote:
> > Hi
> > Please see inline
> >
> >
> > On Sun
On Dec 17, 2013 3:22 PM, "Tim Hinrichs" wrote:
>
>
>
> - Original Message -----
> | From: "Prasad Vellanki"
> | To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> | Sent: Monday,
Hi
Please see inline
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Stephen Wong wrote:
> Hi,
>
> During Thursday's group-policy meeting[1], there are several
> policy-rules related issues which we agreed should be posted on the
> mailing list to gather community comments / consensus. They are:
>
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
