On 18 February 2016 at 08:41, Sean M. Collins wrote:
> This week's update:
>
> Armando was kind enough to take a look[1], since he's got a fresh
> perspective. I think I've been suffering from Target Fixation[1]
> where I failed to notice a couple other failures in the logs.
>
It's been fun, and
On 19 February 2016 at 04:43, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 02/18/2016 09:50 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 18 February 2016 at 08:41, Sean M. Collins > <mailto:s...@coreitpro.com>> wrote:
> >
> > This week's update:
> >
> >
Hi Neutrinos,
This week is Mid-cycle week [1], and some of us will be potentially enroute
to the destination. For this reason, the meeting is cancelled.
If you're interested in participating remotely, please keep an eye on the
etherpad for updates.
Cheers,
Armando
[1] https://etherpad.openstack
On 19 February 2016 at 09:49, John Garbutt wrote:
> On 19 February 2016 at 16:28, Andrew Laski wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> >> On 02/19/2016 09:30 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016, at 05:34 PM, melanie witt wrote:
> >> >> On F
On 20 February 2016 at 12:58, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> Neutron, the largest project in OpenStack by active committers and
> reviewers as measured by the governance repository teamstats tool, has a
> limit of 2 core reviewers per company. They do that for a reason. I
> expect Kolla will gro
On 20 February 2016 at 14:06, Kevin Benton wrote:
> I don't think neutron has a limit. There are 4 from redhat and 3 from hp
> and mirantis right now.
> https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/38,members
>
By the way, technically speaking some of those also only limit themselves
the right to
On 22 February 2016 at 04:56, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> Sean M. Collins wrote:
>
> Armando M. wrote:
>>
>>> Now that the blocking issue has been identified, I filed project-config
>>> change [1] to enable us to test the Neutron Grenade multinode more
On 22 February 2016 at 08:52, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> Armando M. wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On 22 February 2016 at 04:56, Ihar Hrachyshka
>> wrote:
>> Sean M. Collins wrote:
>>
>> Armando M. wrote:
>> Now that the blocking issue has been identified, I
Folks,
Just a reminder that due to the ongoing Neutron mid-cycle, the drivers team
is cancelled for this week.
We'll be sending out a report at the end of the week/early next week to
keep you abreast of the progress made.
Cheers,
Armando
__
Folks,
The API job recent breakage prevents us from merging code. Please refrain
from pushing patches to the merge queue until [1] completes going through
the pipeline.
A.
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/284911/
__
Open
gt;
> On Feb 25, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> The API job recent breakage prevents us from merging code. Please refrain
> from pushing patches to the merge queue until [1] completes going through
> the pipeline.
>
> A.
Hi Neutrinos,
For those of you who couldn't join in person, please find a few notes below
to capture some of the highlights of the event.
I would like to thank everyone one who helped me put this report together,
and everyone who helped make this mid-cycle a fruitful one.
I would also like to th
Hi Neutrinos,
Please remember that what you decorate a commit message with DocImpact,
this must be followed by a brief description of the documentation impact
[1]. Also, please be aware that currently, as soon as the patch merges, a
bug report is filed against the Launchpad project of the targeted
e, we don't need to add the flag into the implementation patch,
> do we?
>
I would not personally add a DocImpact on a spec patch.
>
> Thanks,
> Hirofumi
>
>
> On 2016/03/01 7:18, Armando M. wrote:
>
> Hi Neutrinos,
>
> Please remember that what you dec
Hi Neutrinos,
As I am sure all of you know, this week is Milestone week [1], for this
reason, we need to cut releases for both neutron, neutron *-aas, and the
client. Patches [2, 3] are still in draft, and whilst stuff is in flight,
we'll hold on until we have reached a sensible point where it's s
On 1 March 2016 at 14:52, Kevin Benton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know this has come up in the past, but some folks in the infra channel
> brought up the topic of changing the default security groups to allow all
> traffic.
>
> They had a few reasons for this that I will try to summarize here:
> * Ports
Hi folks,
Status update on this matter:
Russell, Kyle and I had a number of patches out [1], to try and converge on
how to better organize Neutron-related efforts. As a result, a number of
patches merged and a number of patches are still pending. Because of Mitaka
feature freeze, other initiative
Hi Neutrinos,
Mitaka-3 is out [1] and we should be focussing on rc1. This is the time
where we switch gear:
- Test M-3, find issues and target them for RC1 [2];
- Apply/agree for FFE status for pending features on the postmortem [3];
- For features that get FFE granted, I'll be moving ta
On 3 March 2016 at 16:56, Stephen Balukoff wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I have a problem I'm hoping someone can help with: I have gone through the
> task of completing a shiny new feature for an openstack project, and now
> I'm trying to figure out how to get that last all-important documentation
> step d
On 3 March 2016 at 18:35, Stephen Balukoff wrote:
> Hi Armando,
>
> Please rest assured that I really am a fan of requiring. I realize that
> sarcasm doesn't translate to text, so you'll have to trust me when I say
> that I am not being sarcastic by saying that.
>
> However, I am not a fan of bei
On 4 March 2016 at 08:50, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> currently we have both py27 and py27-constraints tox targets in neutron
> repos. For some repos (neutron) they are even executed in both master and
> stable/liberty gates. TC lately decided that instead of having separate
> targets fo
On 4 March 2016 at 11:12, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> Armando M. wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On 4 March 2016 at 08:50, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> currently we have both py27 and py27-constraints tox targets in neutron
>> repos. For some repos (neutr
Hi neutrinos,
A kind reminder for next week's meeting. More on the agenda [1].
Cheers,
Armando
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/Meetings
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
On 6 March 2016 at 06:04, Gary Kotton wrote:
> Hi,
> The commit
> https://review.openstack.org/#q,4c2c983618ddb7a528c9005b0d7aaf5322bd198d,n,z
> causes
> the CI to fail. This is due to the fact that the port creation does not
> return the created_at and updated_at keys. The tempest test that the
On 4 March 2016 at 11:15, Armando M. wrote:
>
>
> On 4 March 2016 at 11:12, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>
>> Armando M. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On 4 March 2016 at 08:50, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> currently w
On 7 March 2016 at 01:02, Gary Kotton wrote:
> I do not think that this is a bug in the plugin. Why are we not doing the
> changes in the base class (unless that is not possible). Having an extra
> read when a resources is created seems like a little of an overkill. I
> understand that it is what
Hi folks,
There's a feature or two that are pending to be delivered in Mitaka [1,2],
and those involve changes to both the server and client sides. Ideally we'd
merge both sides in time for Mitaka RC and that implies that we would be
able to release a new version of the client including changes [3
On 8 March 2016 at 15:07, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Armando M.'s message of 2016-03-08 12:49:16 -0700:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > There's a feature or two that are pending to be delivered in Mitaka
> [1,2],
> > and those involve changes to both the
On 9 March 2016 at 08:16, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Armando M.'s message of 2016-03-08 15:43:05 -0700:
> > On 8 March 2016 at 15:07, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >
> > > Excerpts from Armando M.'s message of 2016-03-08 12:49:16 -0700:
> > > >
On 9 March 2016 at 07:42, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> Henry Gessau wrote:
>
> By tomorrow we intend to tag the heads of all the neutron alembic branches
>> with the MITAKA label [1][2][3][4].
>>
>> If you have a patch that adds an alembic migration and you want to get it
>> in
>> Mitaka you must be
Folks,
I would like to have Ihar as core reviewer for the advanced services (or
any neutron-governance project for the time we have those projects in the
governance).
Ihar is instrumental in ensuring that gate/stable issues are dealt with
promptly and swiftly and I trust he'll be using such as as
On 9 March 2016 at 09:14, Assaf Muller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka
> wrote:
> > Vikash Kumar wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Vikash Kumar
> >> wrote:
> >> I have written a sample neutron agent which subscribe for the
> AFTER_CREATE
> >> ev
Good to go with:
openstack/python-neutronclient 4.1.1
Thanks,
Armando
On 9 March 2016 at 09:26, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> It's time to start opening the stable branches for libraries. I've
> prepared a list of repositories and the proposed versions from which
> we will create stable/mitaka branch
Folks,
Please see [1]. I gave Doug the go-ahead.
Cheers,
Armando
[1]
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/088853.html
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: open
Neutrinos,
We had two back-to-back gate failures on [1,2] and more seem to be ramping
up. These are tracked in bug [3] (e-r query tracked in [4]). Can I trouble
some gentle soul to have a look?
Thanks,
Armando
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/286818/
[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/2853
On 3 March 2016 at 12:05, Armando M. wrote:
> Hi Neutrinos,
>
> Mitaka-3 is out [1] and we should be focussing on rc1. This is the time
> where we switch gear:
>
>- Test M-3, find issues and target them for RC1 [2];
>- Apply/agree for FFE status for pending featu
Neutrinos,
We have about ~20 outstanding bugs marked Medium/High/Critical, and we have
only one or two days left to have a chance to get them in the gate queue
[1]. Can I trouble you to go and make sure patches are up to date and well
reviewed?
Many thanks,
Armando
[1] https://launchpad.net/neut
On 13 March 2016 at 15:14, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> Armando M. wrote:
>
> Neutrinos,
>>
>> We have about ~20 outstanding bugs marked Medium/High/Critical, and we
>> have only one or two days left to have a chance to get them in the gate
>> queue [1]. Can
Neutrinos,
I believe we reached the point [1] where RC1 can be cut [2]. If I made an
error of judgement, or any other catastrophic failure arises, please report
a bug, and tag it as mitaka-rc-potential [3]. Please, sign off on
postmortem [4], so that we can finalize the specs status for Mitaka and
On 16 March 2016 at 22:45, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Heat and Neutron just produced a release candidate for the end of the
> Mitaka cycle! You can find their RC1 source code tarballs at:
>
> https://tarballs.openstack.org/heat/heat-6.0.0.0rc1.tar.gz
>
> https://tarballs.openstac
Hi neutrinos,
A kind reminder for next week's meeting. More on the agenda [1].
Cheers,
Armando
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/Meetings
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
Hi folks,
It's the time of the year where we need to plan for design summit sessions.
This summit we are going for 9 fishbowl sessions, plus a full day on Friday
for team get-together.
We will break down sessions in three separate tracks as we did last
summit. Each track will have its own theme
An update:
On 15 March 2016 at 21:38, Armando M. wrote:
> Neutrinos,
>
> I believe we reached the point [1] where RC1 can be cut [2]. If I made an
> error of judgement, or any other catastrophic failure arises, please report
> a bug, and tag it as mitaka-rc-potential [3]. Plea
On 17 March 2016 at 14:00, Gary Kotton wrote:
> Hi,
> The review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/255285/ breaks our CI. Since
> this has landed we are getting failed tests with the:
> "Details: {u'message': u"Quota exceeded for resources: ['port'].",
> u'type': u'OverQuota', u'detail': u’’}"
> W
On 16 March 2016 at 19:58, Armando M. wrote:
> An update:
>
> On 15 March 2016 at 21:38, Armando M. wrote:
>
>> Neutrinos,
>>
>> I believe we reached the point [1] where RC1 can be cut [2]. If I made an
>> error of judgement, or any other catastrophic failure
I would like to propose my candidacy for the Neutron PTL.
I have been the Neutron PTL for the Mitaka release, and I would like to
continue the journey on which I have embarked upon a little over six months
ago.
Back then, I had a number of objectives which I wanted to achieve with the
help of the
On 16 March 2016 at 15:26, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi PTLs,
>
> Here is the proposed slot allocation for project teams at the Newton
> Design Summit in Austin. This is based on the requests the mitaka PTLs have
> made, space availability and project activity & collaboration needs.
>
> | fb: fishb
On 18 March 2016 at 00:16, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-03-17 09:44:59 +0530 (+0530), Armando M. wrote:
> > Unfortunately, Neutron is also going to need an RC2 due to
> > upstream CI issues triggered by infra change [1] that merged right
> > about the same time RC1 was
On 21 March 2016 at 04:32, Sean M. Collins wrote:
> Rossella Sblendido wrote:
> > 2) multi-node jobs run for every patch set. Is that really what we want?
> > They take pretty long. We could move them to a periodic job.
>
> I would rather remove all the single-node jobs. Nova has been moving to
>
On 21 March 2016 at 04:15, Rossella Sblendido wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> the tests that we run on the gate for Neutron take pretty long (longer
> than one hour). I think we can improve that and make better use of the
> resources.
Here are some ideas that came up when Ihar and I discussed this topic
On 21 March 2016 at 11:08, Clark Boylan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016, at 09:32 AM, Armando M. wrote:
> > Do you have an a better insight of job runtimes vs jobs in other
> > projects?
> > Most of the time in the job runtime is actually spent setting the
> > infrastru
Is there any chance that this release might have caused bug [1]? I am still
root-causing what's going on...any input highly appreciated.
Thanks,
Armando
[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/grenade/+bug/1415284
On 27 January 2015 at 14:23, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> There were some issues with the build
L2pop is a requirement.
With the existing agent-based architecture, L2pop is used to update the FDB
tables on the compute hosts to make east/west traffic possible whenever a
new port is created or existing one is updated.
Cheers,
Armando
On 10 February 2015 at 23:07, Itzik Brown wrote:
> Hi,
>
I also failed to understand the issue, and I commented on the bug report,
where it's probably best to continue this conversation.
Thanks,
Armando
On 16 February 2015 at 07:54, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/16/2015 04:13 PM, James Page wrote:
Hi folks,
I was wondering if we should have a special neutron-drivers meeting on
Wednesday Feb 18th (9:30AM CST / 7:30AM PST) to discuss recent patches
where a few cores have not reached consensus on, namely:
- https://review.openstack.org/#/c/155373/
- https://review.openstack.org/#/c/148318/
T
On 17 February 2015 at 22:00, YAMAMOTO Takashi
wrote:
> hi,
>
> i want to add an extra requirement specific to OVS-agent.
> (namely, I want to add ryu for ovs-ofctl-to-python blueprint. [1]
> but the question is not specific to the blueprint.)
> to avoid messing deployments without OVS-agent, suc
+1!
On 4 March 2015 at 22:29, Kevin Benton wrote:
> +1
> On Mar 4, 2015 12:25 PM, "Maru Newby" wrote:
>
>> +1 from me, Ihar has been doing great work and it will be great to have
>> him finally able to merge!
>>
>> > On Mar 4, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd like to propos
If my memory does not fail me, changes to the API (new resources, new
resource attributes or new operations allowed to resources) have always
been done according to these criteria:
- an opt-in approach: this means we know the expected behavior of the
plugin as someone has coded the plugin in
Forwarding my reply to the other thread here:
If my memory does not fail me, changes to the API (new resources, new
resource attributes or new operations allowed to resources) have always
been done according to these criteria:
- an opt-in approach: this means we know the expected behavio
des are required,
> and we decided to change the subnet "core" resource. It is the exception.
>
> Thanks,
> Akihiro
>
> 2015-03-20 8:23 GMT+09:00 Armando M. :
> > Forwarding my reply to the other thread here:
> >
> >
> >
> > If my m
e two bugs.
Thanks,
Armando
On 20 March 2015 at 09:51, Armando M. wrote:
>
>
> On 19 March 2015 at 23:59, Akihiro Motoki wrote:
>
>> Forwarding my reply to the other thread too...
>>
>> Multiple threads on the same topic is confusing.
>> Can we use this thread if we
>From spec [1], I read:
- Of the core drivers, the VLAN and OVS drivers will be marked as not
supporting VLAN transparent networks and the LB, VXLAN and GRE drivers will
be marked as supporting VLAN transparent networks. Other drivers will have
legacy behaviour.
I can't seem to find
On 6 April 2015 at 08:56, Miguel Ángel Ajo wrote:
> I’d like to co-organized a QoS weekly meeting with Sean M. Collins,
>
> In the last few years, the interest for QoS support has increased,
> Sean has been leading
> this effort [1] and we believe we should get into a consensus about how to
I would like to announce my candidacy for the OpenStack Technical Committee.
I will try to be brief and to the point: I have been involved in OpenStack
since the early days of the Austin release; I have worked on (perhaps) the
two most prolific projects in OpenStack (Nova, and Neutron) and a few
o
On 22 April 2015 at 06:02, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
wrote:
>
> Hi everybody,
>
>In the latest QoS meeting, one of the topics was a discussion about how
> to implement
> QoS [1] either as in core, or as a service plugin, in, or out-tree.
>
My apologies if I was unable to join, the meeting clas
On 22 April 2015 at 11:19, Russell Bryant wrote:
> Hello!
>
> A couple of things I've been working on lately are project governance
> issues as a TC member and also implementation of a new virtual
> networking alternative with a Neutron driver. So, naturally I started
> thinking about how the Ne
>
>
>> Would it make sense to capture these projects as simply 'affiliated', ie.
>> with a loose relationship to Neutron, because they use/integrate with
>> Neutron in some form or another (e.g. having 3rd-party, extending-api,
>> integrating-via-plugin-model, etc)? Then we could simply consider ex
>
>
> Could you please also pay some attention on Cons of this ultimate
> splitting Kyle? I'm afraid it would hurt the user experiences.
>
> On the position of Dev, A naked Neutron without "official" built-in
> reference implementation probably has a more clear architecture. On
> the other side, us
On 23 April 2015 at 01:49, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Armando M. wrote:
> > Is it sensible to assume that Stackforge is going away entirely at some
> > point in the future, and we'll have a single namespace - OpenStack?
>
> The key difference between Stackforge and Op
>
>
>> I agree with henry here.
> Armando, If we use your analogy with nova that doesn't build and deliver
> KVM, we can say that Neutron doesn't build or deliver OVS. It builds a
> driver and an agent which manage OVS, just like nova which provides a
> driver to manage libvirt/KVM.
> Moreover, ext
On 23 April 2015 at 07:32, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 04/22/2015 10:33 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> >
> > Would it make sense to capture these projects as simply
> > 'affiliated', ie. with a loose relationship to Neutron, because
> > th
On 23 April 2015 at 09:58, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 04/23/2015 12:14 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 23 April 2015 at 07:32, Russell Bryant > <mailto:rbry...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/22/2015 10:33 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>
On 24 April 2015 at 01:47, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
wrote:
> Hi Armando & Salvatore,
>
> On 23/4/2015, at 9:30, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23 April 2015 at 01:30, Armando M. wrote:
>
>>
>> On 22 April 2015 at 06:02, Miguel Angel Ajo Pe
>
> If we've reached the point where we're arguing about naming, dos this mean
>> we've built consensus on the "yes, it makes sense for these to live under
>> Neutron" argument?
>>
>
>
I think we are in agreement that these projects need to find a more obvious
home, they feel somewhat orphan otherw
>
>
> Any project that fails to meet the criteria later can be dropped at any
> time. For example, if some repo is clearly unmaintained, it can be
> removed.
>
If we open the door to excluding projects down the road, then wouldn't we
need to take into account some form of 3rd party CI validation
On 27 April 2015 at 09:09, Rossella Sblendido wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am working at the blueprint "Restructure the L2 agent" [1] .
> One of the work item of this blueprint is to modify the port_update
> message to include the attributes of the ports that were modified. This
> is implemented in
On 23 April 2015 at 09:14, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> This might be a bit presumptuous, but why not give it a try...
>
> This cycle's TC elections didn't come with a set of prepackaged
> questions and though the self-nomination messages have included some
> very interesting stuff I think it would be u
On 27 April 2015 at 18:16, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > On 27 April 2015 at 09:09, Rossella Sblendido
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> I am working at the blueprint "Restructure the L2 agent" [1] .
> >> One of the work item of this blueprint is to modify the port_update
> >> message to incl
On 28 April 2015 at 05:52, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 04/28/2015 06:25 AM, Rossella Sblendido wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 04/28/2015 03:24 AM, Armando M. wrote:
> >> >> UnsupportedVersion error if the version is not bumped in their
> agent too.
> >&g
Hi folks,
Now that Ocata is officially releases, I'd like to get a moment of your
time to double check our postmortem document [1], and provide as much
information as you can on the state of work assigned to you or work you
have been involved with during the Ocata timeframe.
Your old PTL and cons
Hi neutrinos,
As stated a while back [1], it's about time to pull the trigger on the
retirement of networking-ofagent. Please find the retirement patches
available at [2]. Users of this repo must use the neutron OVS agent with
of_interface set to native to retain the same level of capability.
Che
On 5 March 2017 at 23:24, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> With https://review.openstack.org/#/c/437699/ in, stadium projects
> will no longer have any other option but to follow the common
> schedule. That change is new for Pike+ so we may still see some issues
> with Ocata release process.
>
The stabl
On 8 March 2017 at 07:39, Hirofumi Ichihara wrote:
>
>
> On 2017/03/08 23:59, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-08 15:40, ZZelle wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> iiuc, neutron uses a released version of neutron-lib not neutron-lib
>>> master ... So the change should depends on a change in requiremen
On 21 March 2017 at 02:00, Kevin Benton wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The recent DST switch has caused several conflicts for the Monday IRC
> meeting time and the drivers meeting time.
>
> I am going to adjust the Monday meeting time to 1 hour earlier[1] and the
> drivers meeting time to 6 hours earl
On 22 March 2017 at 21:39, Armando M. wrote:
>
>
> On 21 March 2017 at 02:00, Kevin Benton wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> The recent DST switch has caused several conflicts for the Monday IRC
>> meeting time and the drivers meeting time.
>>
>> I
On 22 March 2017 at 22:19, Sam wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm working on neutron, I add some code into ovs_neutron_agent.py, and I
> extend test_ovs_neutron_agent.py.
>
> Is there some way to run test_ovs_neutron_agent.py or run related module
> only?
>
> Thank you.
>
You should find your answer in [1
On 30 March 2017 at 08:08, Saverio Proto wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am testing the neutron l2gw in our staging env.
>
> Because I cant redeploy everything, to retry the installation of the
> l2gw, to clean the database I drop the following tables from the neutron
> database:
>
> drop table physical_po
On 30 March 2017 at 08:47, Saverio Proto wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to use the neutron l2gw plugin, but I am not using a bare
> metal switch to bridge.
>
> I am using a server with Openvswitch.
>
I am not aware of any effort to implement L2GW purely in software, in fact
this was one key mis
networking-l2gw/blob/master/doc/source/images/L2GW_deployment.png
[2]
https://github.com/openstack/networking-l2gw/blob/master/specs/kilo/l2-gateway-api-implementation.rst
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpilpgPnYrE
>
> thank you
>
> Saverio
>
>
>
>
> On 30/03/17 18:4
On 20 April 2017 at 17:20, Kevin Benton wrote:
> Thanks! Do you have the link to where that script lives? It would be good
> to have it in the neutron devref.
>
It's here:
https://docs.openstack.org/developer/neutron/devref/
effective_neutron.html#code-review
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:23
Hi folks,
At the summit we had a discussion on how to deploy a single neutron system
across multiple geographical sites [1]. You can find notes of the
discussion on [2].
One key requirement that came from the discussion was to make Neutron more
Nova cells friendly. I filed an RFE bug [3] so that
Hi folks,
At the summit we had a forum session [1] to gather feedback on the current
diagnostics proposal [2] and help the neutron developer team drive the
first implementation of the API proposal.
Two main points were brought for discussion:
1) which diagnostics checks to provide to start with;
Hi folks,
At the summit we had a discussion on how to expand get-me-a-network [1]. A
few main points were collected during the session:
* Make get-me-a-network work with Horizon;
* Make get-me-a-network able to auto-assign floating IPs;
* Make get-me-a-network able to work with any network topolo
on systems that exist in
separated openstack deployments. Making Neutron cell-aware will work in the
context of the same openstack deployment.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Victor Morales
>
>
>
> *From: *"Armando M."
> *Reply-To: *"OpenStack Development Mailing L
On 19 May 2017 at 14:54, Clark Boylan wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2017, at 02:03 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> > I split this conversation off of the "Is the pendulum swinging on PaaS
> > layers?" thread [1] to discuss some improvements we can make to Neutron
> > to
> > make orchestration easier.
> >
>
On 24 May 2017 at 08:53, Robert Li (baoli) wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
>
>
> In that case, I will start working on it. Should this be considered a RFE
> or a regular bug?
>
There have been discussions in the past about this [1]. The conclusion of
the discussion was: Nova should have everything it needs
On 6 June 2017 at 04:49, Sean Dague wrote:
> Some good progress has been made so far on Global Request ID work in the
> core IaaS layer, here is where we stand.
>
> STATUS
>
> oslo.context / oslo.middleware - everything DONE
>
> devstack logging additional global_request_id - DONE
>
> cinder:
> -
On 9 June 2017 at 06:36, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> We have several projects with deliverables following the
> cycle-with-milestones release model without pike 2 releases. Please
> check the list below and prepare those release requests as soon as
> possible. Remember that this milestone is date-base
On 20 June 2017 at 00:09, Kevin Benton wrote:
> The issue is mainly developer resources. Everyone currently working
> upstream doesn't have the bandwidth to keep adding/reviewing the layers of
> interfaces to make the DB optional that go untested. (None of the projects
> that would use them run a
On 21 June 2017 at 17:40, Édouard Thuleau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> @Chaoyi,
> I don't want to change the core plugin interface. But I'm not sure we
> are talking about the same interface. I had a very quick look into the
> tricycle code and I think it uses the NeutronDbPluginV2 interface [1]
> which impl
401 - 500 of 673 matches
Mail list logo
