And here is the code that does this (for cloudinit 0.7.x):
https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~cloud-init-dev/cloud-init/trunk/view/head:/cloudinit/sources/helpers/openstack.py
This same code is used by the config drive datasource (the one that
makes a disk/iso) in cloudinit and the http endpoint bas
The contract we have is to maintain compatibility. As long as a client
written for the AWS API continues to work, I don't think we are violating
anything. Offering one API isn't a promise not to offer an alternative way
to access the same information.
On Sep 6, 2015 7:37 PM, "Sean M. Collins" wrot
on a second ip.
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Sean M. Collins
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2015 7:34:54 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack support for Amazon Concepts - was Re:
cloud-init IPv6 support
O
PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack support for Amazon Concepts - was Re:
cloud-init IPv6 support
> On Sep 6, 2015, at 09:43, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
>> On 09/05/2015 06:19 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote:
>>>
No, we already extend the metadata server with our own stuff. See /openstack/
on the metadata server. Cloudinit even supports the extensions. Supporting ipv6
as well as v4 is the same. Why does it matter if aws doesnt currently support
it? They can support it if they want in the future and reuse
On 7 September 2015 at 01:02, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 2015, at 09:43, Monty Taylor wrote:
>>> On 09/05/2015 06:19 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote:
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:20:23PM EDT, Kevin Benton wrote:
Right, it depends on your perspective of who 'owns' the API. Is it
cl
On 7 September 2015 at 03:34, Sean M. Collins wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 04:25:43PM EDT, Kevin Benton wrote:
>> So it's been pointed out that http://169.254.169.254/openstack is completed
>> OpenStack invented. I don't quite understand how that's not violating the
>> contract you said we hav
On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 04:25:43PM EDT, Kevin Benton wrote:
> So it's been pointed out that http://169.254.169.254/openstack is completed
> OpenStack invented. I don't quite understand how that's not violating the
> contract you said we have with end users about EC2 compatibility under the
> restri
> On Sep 6, 2015, at 09:43, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
>> On 09/05/2015 06:19 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:20:23PM EDT, Kevin Benton wrote:
>>> Right, it depends on your perspective of who 'owns' the API. Is it
>>> cloud-init or EC2?
>>>
>>> At this point I would argue
So it's been pointed out that http://169.254.169.254/openstack is completed
OpenStack invented. I don't quite understand how that's not violating the
contract you said we have with end users about EC2 compatibility under the
restriction of 'no new stuff'.
If we added an IPv6 endpoint that the meta
On 09/05/2015 06:19 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote:
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:20:23PM EDT, Kevin Benton wrote:
Right, it depends on your perspective of who 'owns' the API. Is it
cloud-init or EC2?
At this point I would argue that cloud-init is in control because it would
be a large undertaking to s
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:20:23PM EDT, Kevin Benton wrote:
> Right, it depends on your perspective of who 'owns' the API. Is it
> cloud-init or EC2?
>
> At this point I would argue that cloud-init is in control because it would
> be a large undertaking to switch all of the AMI's on Amazon to some
12 matches
Mail list logo
