Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [designate] multi-tenancy in Neutron's DNS integration

2016-05-11 Thread Kevin Benton
Yes, dnsmasq is there as a simple solution for people that didn't want a separate DNS server specified in their subnet. Can you just enable DHCP on the subnet? Even though your containers don't use it for addressing, it will still work for resolving DNS. (it doesn't answer anonymous DHCP queries

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [designate] multi-tenancy in Neutron's DNS integration

2016-05-11 Thread Hayes, Graham
On 11/05/2016 18:45, Mike Spreitzer wrote: >> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Kevin Benton wrote: >> neutron subnet-show with the UUID of the subnet they have a port on >> will tell you. >> >> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Mike Spreitzer > wrote: >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [designate] multi-tenancy in Neutron's DNS integration

2016-05-10 Thread Kevin Benton
Whoops. What I just said was wrong if it hadn't been explicitly overwritten. I think you will end up having to do a port-list looking for the DHCP port(s). http://paste.openstack.org/show/496604/ On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Kevin Benton wrote: > neutron subnet-show

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [designate] multi-tenancy in Neutron's DNS integration

2016-05-10 Thread Kevin Benton
neutron subnet-show with the UUID of the subnet they have a port on will tell you. On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Mike Spreitzer wrote: > "Hayes, Graham" wrote on 05/10/2016 09:30:26 AM: > > > ... > > > Ah, that may be what I want. BTW, I am not

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [designate] multi-tenancy in Neutron's DNS integration

2016-05-10 Thread Hayes, Graham
On 09/05/2016 21:48, Mike Spreitzer wrote: > "Hayes, Graham" wrote on 05/09/2016 04:08:07 PM: > > > ... > > On 09/05/2016 20:55, Mike Spreitzer wrote: > > ... > > > Oh, right, the network gets to specify the rest of the FQDN. In my > case > > > I am interested in

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [designate] multi-tenancy in Neutron's DNS integration

2016-05-09 Thread Hayes, Graham
On 9 May 2016 9:48 p.m., Mike Spreitzer wrote: > > "Hayes, Graham" wrote on "Hayes, Graham" wrote on 05/09/2016 04:08:07 PM: > ... > On 09/05/2016 20:55, Mike Spreitzer wrote: > ... > > Oh, right, the network gets to specify

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [designate] multi-tenancy in Neutron's DNS integration

2016-05-09 Thread Mike Spreitzer
"Hayes, Graham" wrote on 05/09/2016 04:08:07 PM: > ... > On 09/05/2016 20:55, Mike Spreitzer wrote: > ... > > Oh, right, the network gets to specify the rest of the FQDN. In my case > > I am interested in Neutron Ports on tenant networks. So with a per-port > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [designate] multi-tenancy in Neutron's DNS integration

2016-05-09 Thread Hayes, Graham
t; > > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > > Date: 05/09/2016 03:05 PM > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [designate] multi-tenancy in > > Neutron's DNS integration > > > > On 09/05/2016 19:21, Mike Spreitzer wrote: > > > I jus

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [designate] multi-tenancy in Neutron's DNS integration

2016-05-09 Thread Mike Spreitzer
05/09/2016 03:05 PM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [designate] multi-tenancy in > Neutron's DNS integration > > On 09/05/2016 19:21, Mike Spreitzer wrote: > > I just read > > http://docs.openstack.org/mitaka/networking-guide/adv-config-dns.htmland > , unless &

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [designate] multi-tenancy in Neutron's DNS integration

2016-05-09 Thread Hayes, Graham
On 09/05/2016 19:21, Mike Spreitzer wrote: > I just read > http://docs.openstack.org/mitaka/networking-guide/adv-config-dns.htmland, > unless > I missed something, it seems to be describing something that is not > multi-tenant. I am focused on FQDNs for Neutron Ports. For those, only > the