See @PCM inline...
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:44 AM Germy Lure wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maybe I missed some key points. But why we introduced vpn-endpoint groups
> here?
>
@PCM For the multiple local subnet capabilities for IPSec, the existing API
would need to be changed, so that we can specify 1+ loc
Hi,
Maybe I missed some key points. But why we introduced vpn-endpoint groups
here?
"ipsec-site-connection" for IPSec VPN only, "gre-connection" for GRE VPN
only, and "mpls-connection" for MPLS VPN only. You see, different
connections for different vpn types. Indeed, We can't reuse connection API
My two cents..
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> Hi Paul, comments inline...
>
> On 08/24/2015 07:02 AM, Paul Michali wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm working on the multiple local subnet feature for VPN (RFE
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1459423), with a developer
>> ref
Had a discussion today on Neutron IRC with Salvatore (thanks!) and here is
the thoughts forward going...
1) Will do two commits, one for endpoint groups, which is a new API and
stands independently, and one for multiple local subnets, which will alter
existing APIs. This should prevent any test jo
Hi Paul, comments inline...
On 08/24/2015 07:02 AM, Paul Michali wrote:
Hi,
I'm working on the multiple local subnet feature for VPN (RFE
https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1459423), with a developer
reference document detailing the proposed process
(https://review.openstack.org/#/c/191944
Hi,
I'm working on the multiple local subnet feature for VPN (RFE
https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1459423), with a developer
reference document detailing the proposed process (
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/191944/). The plan is to do this in two
steps. The first is to add new APIs and
