On Tue, 29 Nov 2016, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It was ‘cubswin:)’ before, but now that Cubs won [1] it’s ‘gocubsgo’ [2].
>
> I hope it helps someone in the future.
>
> [1]
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-cubs-win-world-series-sullivan-spt-1103-20161102-story.html
>
On Mon, 8 Aug 2016, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-08-08 11:20:54 +0200 (+0200), Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo wrote:
> > The problem with the other projects image builds is that they are
> > based for bigger systems, while cirros is an embedded-device-like
> > image which boots in a couple of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello all,
I've made a build of cirros versioned '0.3.4~pre1' available on
http://download.cirros-cloud.net/0.3.4~pre1/
Hello all,
cirros 0.3.3 has been released. It is available for download at
http://download.cirros-cloud.net/0.3.4~pre1 .
The
Hello all,
cirros 0.3.3 has been released. It is available for download at
http://download.cirros-cloud.net/0.3.3 .
The changes since 0.3.2 are:
- Wrap udhcpc to provide for easier passing of options including
those required to get MTU set properly. (LP: #1301958)
- Busybox: enable nc
On Mon, 7 Jul 2014, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
Andrew Mann wrote:
What's the use case for an IPv6 endpoint? This service is just for instance
metadata,
so as long as a requirement to support IPv4 is in place, using solely an
IPv4 endpoint
avoids a number of complexities:
The obvious use case
On Mon, 7 Jul 2014, Sean Dague wrote:
Right, but that assumes router control.
In general, anyone doing singlestack v6 at the moment relies on
config-drive to make it work. This works fine but it depends what
cloud-init support your application has.
I think it's also important to
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Ian Wells wrote:
On 10 December 2013 20:55, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote:
If it is just a network API, it works the same for everybody. This
makes it simpler, and thus easier to scale out independently of compute
hosts. It is also something we already support
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
Hmm.. so If I understand right, the concern you started is something like:
* You start up a vm
* You make it available to your users to ssh into
* They could grab the machine's metadata
I hadn't thought about that use case, but that does sound
