Ryan, point well taken. I am paraphrasing the discussion from today's
GBP sub team meeting on the options considered and the eventual
proposal for policy-point and policy-group:
18:36:50 SumitNaiksatam_ so regarding the endpoint terminology
18:36:53 SumitNaiksatam_ any suggestions?
18:36:56
Hi Jay, To extend Ivar's response here, the core resources and core
plugin configuration does not change with the addition of these
extensions. The mechanism to implement the GBP extensions is via a
service plugin. So even in a deployment where a GBP service plugin is
deployed with a driver which
Actually I am able to access the logs in this CI over the internet and
through my service provider. I have copy-pasted the log from the
latest freescale run here (to validate if this is indeed the latest
run):
http://paste.openstack.org/show/92229/
But good point Kevin, when I was trying to post
Thanks Jay for your constructive feedback on this. I personally think
that 'policy-target' is a good option. I am not sure what the rest of
the team thinks, perhaps they can chime in.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/07/2014 01:17 PM, Ronak Shah wrote:
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 August 2014 10:56, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
There is an enforcement component to the group policy that allows you to
use the current APIs and it's the reason that group policy is integrated
into the neutron
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Robert Kukura kuk...@noironetworks.com wrote:
[Note - I understand there are ongoing discussion that may lead to a
proposal for an out-of-tree incubation process for new Neutron features.
This is a complementary proposal that describes how our existing
Per the blueprint spec [1], what has been proposed are optional
extensions which complement the existing Neutron core resources'
model:
The main advantage of the extensions described in this blueprint is
that they allow for an application-centric interface to Neutron that
complements the
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Angus Lees g...@inodes.org wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:11:51 AM Kevin Benton wrote:
Is the pylint static analysis that caught that error prone to false
positives? If not, I agree that it would be really nice if that were made
part of the tox check so these
Hi Michael,
Thanks for keeping us in the loop on the progress at your end. This is
very nice work. I quickly read through the section you referenced in
your email, and it does capture the current state of the work in
OpenStack/Neutron.
~Sumit.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Michael Grima
+1 for neutron-labs! ;-)
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Stefano Maffulli
stef...@openstack.org wrote:
On 08/19/2014 08:39 AM, Eichberger, German wrote:
Just to be clear: We all think the incubator is a great idea and if
some things are ironed out will be a good way to onboard new projects
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 20/08/14 18:28, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
Some comments inline.
Salvatore
On 20 August
Hi,
There's been a lot of lively discussion on GBP a few weeks back and we
wanted to drive forward the discussion on this a bit more. As you
might imagine, we're excited to move this forward so more people can
try it out. Here are the options:
* Neutron feature branch: This presumably allows
, Sumit Naiksatam
*sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com* sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
There's been a lot of lively discussion on GBP a few weeks back
and we
wanted to drive forward the discussion on this a bit more. As
you
might imagine
Thanks for your interest in GBP, responses inline.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Sachi Gupta sachi.gu...@tcs.com wrote:
Hi All,
Request you all to provide inputs on below understanding:
Openstack: Group-based policy is a blueprint for Juno-3 release of
Openstack. It will extend
Yair, The FWaaS tempest tests were not planned for H release. They are
planned for the current release (hence the blueprint) and some of us were
working towards them. This is also a standing discuss item this during the
the FWaaS sub team meetings.
Thanks,
~Sumit.
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:41
Just thinking aloud - would it make sense to have a meta-configuration
file; this file can hold the names of the configuration files to load.
This would allow being a little more granular than picking up
everything from a directory (if we had to go the route of using a
directory name).
~Sumit.
I believe the current recommendation is also to not vote -1 automatically, see:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/63478
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Rossella Sblendido
rosse...@midokura.com wrote:
Hi Trinath,
you can find more info about third party testing here [1]
Every new driver or
Hi Kyle,
The new time sounds good to me as well, thanks for initiating this.
~sumit.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Stephen Wong s3w...@midokura.com wrote:
Hi Kyle,
Almost missed this - sounds good to me.
Thanks,
- Stephen
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Kyle Mestery
Hi, Apologies for chiming in late on this. Yes, we have been
incubating the service insertion and chaining features [2] for some
time now. The plan was to have a FW-VPN chain working by Icehouse
release. Towards that end the first step was to introduce the notion
of a service insertion context
Thanks Mohammad for bringing this up. I responded in another thread:
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-February/027306.html
~Sumit.
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Mohammad Banikazemi m...@us.ibm.com wrote:
During the last IRC call we started talking about network
becoming more apparent as to why these constructs are
required in Neutron.
Mohammad
[image: Inactive hide details for Sumit Naiksatam ---02/17/2014 02:12:12
AM---Thanks Mohammad for bringing this up. I responded in anot]Sumit
Naiksatam ---02/17/2014 02:12:12 AM---Thanks Mohammad for bringing
Hi, On account of the ongoing RSA conference, some members of our
neutron firewall sub-team will not be able to attend this Wednesday's
IRC. So we will have the meeting on Feb 28th (Friday) at 1800 UTC on:
#openstack-meeting
Hope you can attend.
Thanks,
~Sumit.
Thanks,
Carlos Goncalves
On 25 Feb 2014, at 23:49, Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, On account of the ongoing RSA conference, some members of our
neutron firewall sub-team will not be able to attend this Wednesday's
IRC. So we will have the meeting on Feb 28th (Friday
Hi,
This is a reminder - we will be having this meeting in
#openstack-meeting-3 on March 13th (Thursday) at 18:00 UTC. The
proposed agenda is as follows:
* Flavors/service-type framework
* Service insertion/chaining
* Group policy requirements
* Vendor plugins for L3 services
We can also decide
backend provider (and
might end up being specific to that deployment)
* Name of this abstraction, we did not discuss this
** Service Insertion/Chaining (topic lead: Sumit Naiksatam)
* Service context
- general agreement on what is being introduced in:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/62599
* Service
I believe we need to be looking at the trunk for the Icehouse related
documentation:
http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/config-reference/content/networking-options-plugins.html
Mohammad, IBM plugin config does show up here as does the ODL mech driver.
Thanks,
~Sumit.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:58
Hi All,
We had a VPNaaS meeting yesterday and it was felt that we should have a
separate meeting to discuss the topics common to all services. So, in
preparation for the Icehouse summit, I am proposing an IRC meeting on Oct
14th 22:00 UTC (immediately after the Neutron meeting) to discuss common
Hi Rudra,
We tried to separate policy from mechanism for this blueprint, and are
trying to address the latter. I believe the logic for scaling, and or
clustering multiple service VMs to map to a logical service instance would
lie in the service plugin which realizes the logical service instance.
Hi Harshad,
I agree with you that the service instance terminology might be a little
confusing here. The way it was phrased in the original email, I believe it
was meant to suggest an association with the corresponding Neutron logical
service (the XaaS to be precise).
That said (and to your
Thanks Bob, I agree this is an important aspect of the implementation.
However, apart from being able to specify which network(s) the VM has
interfaces on, what more needs to be done specifically in the proposed
library to achieve the tenant level isolation?
Thanks,
~Sumit.
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013
Hi All,
For the next of phase of FWaaS development we will be considering a number
of features. I am proposing an IRC meeting on Oct 16th Wednesday 18:00 UTC
(11 AM PDT) to discuss this.
The etherpad for the summit session proposal is here:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-neutron-fwaas
to propose a more convenient time for
everyone involved for a meeting next week. Meanwhile, we can continue to
use the mailing list, etherpad, and/or comment on the specific proposals.
Thanks,
~Sumit.
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi All,
We had
join.
Thanks,
~Sumit.
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
sumitnaiksa...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi All,
For the next of phase of FWaaS development we will be considering a number
of features. I am proposing an IRC meeting on Oct 16th Wednesday 18:00 UTC
(11 AM PDT) to discuss
/NeutronAdvancedServices
Hope you can make it and participate.
Thanks,
~Sumit.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
sumitnaiksa...@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks all for attending the IRC meeting today for the Neutron advanced
services discussion. We have an etherpad for this:
https
and anything else you may want to discuss in this context.
Meeting wiki page (has pointer to the first meeting logs):
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/AdvancedServices
Thanks,
~Sumit.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Sumit Naiksatam
sumitnaiksa...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi All,
We will have
, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
sumitnaiksa...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi All,
This is a reminder for the next IRC meeting on Tuesday (Oct 22nd) 15.30
UTC (8.30 AM PDT) on the #openstack-meeting-alt channel.
The proposed agenda is:
* Service insertion and chaining
* Service agents
Hi All,
The Neutron FWaaS team would like to solicit your feedback on a proposal
for supporting Zones as a part of firewall support. The common definition
for zones involves the use of interfaces. In Neutron interfaces have a
one-to-one correspondence with Neutron ports. The current proposal is
to bring up for
discussion during the summit.
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/FWaaS
Thanks,
~Sumit.
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
sumitnaiksa...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi All,
For the next of phase of FWaaS development we will be considering a number
of features. I am
So is it at 8 AM PDT, or 10 AM PDT?
Thanks,
~Sumit.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Eugene Nikanorov
enikano...@mirantis.comwrote:
Hi Sam,
Yes, I meant 8:00AM PDT, 10:00-12:00 AM PDT works for me as well.
Looks like this time is not convenient for Yongsheng, unfortunately, but I
think we
Log from today's meeting:
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_fwaas/2013/networking_fwaas.2013-10-23-18.02.log.html
Action items for some of the folks included.
Please join us for the meeting next week.
Thanks,
~Sumit.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
but this is a decision we should
leave to end customers. We should allow configuring zones in
bump-in-the-wire mode as well.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com wrote:
Log from today's meeting:
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_fwaas/2013
Hi All,
This is a reminder for the next IRC meeting on Tuesday (Oct 29th) 15.30 UTC
(8.30 AM PDT) on the #openstack-meeting-alt channel.
Meeting agenda: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/AdvancedServices
Thanks,
~Sumit.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Sumit Naiksatam
sumitnaiksa
28, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
sumitnaiksa...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi All,
This is a reminder for the next IRC meeting on Tuesday (Oct 29th) 15.30
UTC (8.30 AM PDT) on the #openstack-meeting-alt channel.
Meeting agenda: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/AdvancedServices
Thanks
Hi All,
Reminder - we will have the Neutron FWaaS IRC meeting tomorrow Wednesday
18:00 UTC (11 AM PDT).
Agenda - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/FWaaS
Thanks,
~Sumit.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
sumitnaiksa...@gmail.comwrote:
Log from today's meeting:
http
connected to LAN and Router. The there are cases where the
end-users apply same zones on both sides but this is a decision we should
leave to end customers. We should allow configuring zones in
bump-in-the-wire mode as well.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
sumitnaiksa
Log from today's meeting:
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_fwaas/2013/networking_fwaas.2013-10-30-18.03.log.html
We next meet at the summit, see you there.
Thanks,
~Sumit.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
sumitnaiksa...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi All,
Reminder
Hi Carlos,
I noticed that the point you raised here had not been followed up. So
if I understand correctly, your concern is related to sharing common
configuration information between GP drivers, and ML2 mechanism
drivers (when used in the mapping)? If so, would a common
configuration file
Hi Carlos,
I noticed that the point you raised here had not been followed up. So
if I understand correctly, your concern is related to sharing common
configuration information between GP drivers, and ML2 mechanism
drivers (when used in the mapping)? If so, would a common
configuration file
Inline...
~Sumit.
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
Hi Israel,
please find my answers inline.
I'm not really an expert in this area, but I hope these answers are helpful,
and, hopefully, correct!
Salvatore
On 15 June 2014 14:55, Israel Ziv
Is this still the right repo for this:
https://github.com/openstack/neutron-specs
The latest commit on the master branch shows June 25th timestamp, but
we have had a lots of patches merging after that. Where are those
going?
Thanks,
~Sumit.
___
To level set, the FWaaS model was (intentionally) made agnostic of
whether the firewall was being subject to the E-W or N-S traffic (or
both). The possibility of having to use a different
strategy/implementation to handle the two sets of traffic differently,
is an artifact of the backend
Thanks for initiating this discussion. We would be happy to
participate and host this at the Cisco office as well if need be.
~Sumit.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Sean Roberts seanrobert...@gmail.com wrote:
I need feedback from the congress team on which two days works for you.
11-12
Hi All,
The Group Policy team is planning to meet on July 24th to focus on
making progress with the pending items for Juno, and also to
facilitate the vendor drivers. The specific agenda will be posted on
the Group Policy wiki:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/GroupPolicy
Prasad Vellanki
To the earlier question on whether we had defined what we wanted to
solve with the flavors framework, a high level requirement was
captured in the following approved spec for advanced services:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/92200
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:18 AM, Eugene Nikanorov
Just sending me a unicast reply that you are coming should be good.
Thanks for your interest.
Sumit.
On Jul 17, 2014 12:26 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there somewhere we should RSVP to this?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com wrote
There is an approved blueprint spec for this:
http://docs-draft.openstack.org/24/101124/12/check/gate-neutron-specs-docs/d7bacf5/doc/build/html/specs/juno/add-ipset-to-security.html
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Israel Ziv israel@huawei.com wrote:
Hi!
I wonder if it is planned to
://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/GroupPolicy
Thanks,
~Sumit (on behalf of GBP team).
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
The Group Policy team is planning to meet on July 24th to focus on
making progress with the pending items for Juno, and also
Greetings! This is a reminder for the weekly IRC Sub-team meeting
occurring on Thursdays at 1800 UTC on #openstack-meeting-3 [1].
Tomorrow's agenda is posted here:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron_Group_Policy#July_31st.2C_2014
In particular, we propose to focus on two items:
*
Thanks Kevin and others for the input here. We have put this on
today's Group Policy IRC meeting agenda:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron_Group_Policy#July_31st.2C_2014
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. Ryan, can you propose a patch
The first patch[1] of this high priority approved blueprint[2][3]
targeted for Juno-3 has been blocked by a core reviewer’s (Mark
McClain) -2 since July 2nd. This patch was at patch-set 13 then, and
has been repeatedly reviewed and updated to the current patch-set 22.
However, there has been no
That's right Kevin, EPG (and its association to the L2/3_Policy)
capture the attributes which would represent the network-template
being referenced here.
Jay, what Bob mentioned here was an option to use the endpoint as a
one-to-one replacement for the option of using a Neutron port. This is
more
plain old concepts, not networking guru
arcanum.
Best,
-jay
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com mailto:sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com wrote:
That's right Kevin, EPG (and its association to the L2/3_Policy)
capture the attributes which would represent
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote:
Correct, this work is orthogonal to the parity work, which I understand is
coming along very nicely.
Agree Gary and Kevin. I think the topic of Nova integration has
created confusion in people’s mind (at least the
Edgar, you seemed to have +2'ed this patch on July 2nd [1]:
Edgar Magana
Jul 2 8:42 AM
Patch Set 13: Code-Review+2
All looks good to me! I am not approving yet because Nachi was also
reviewing this code and I would like to see his opinion as well.
That would suggest that you were happy with
, there is always a smartest
reviewer catching out the facts that you don¹t.
Edgar
On 8/6/14, 10:55 AM, Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com wrote:
Edgar, you seemed to have +2'ed this patch on July 2nd [1]:
Edgar Magana
Jul 2 8:42 AM
Patch Set 13: Code-Review+2
All looks good to me! I am
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe the referential security group rules solve this problem (unless
I'm not understanding):
I think the disconnect is that you are comparing the way to current mapping
driver implements things for the reference
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/06/2014 04:13 PM, Sumit Naiksatam wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe the referential security group rules solve this problem
(unless
I'm not understanding):
I
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/06/2014 04:36 PM, Sumit Naiksatam wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/06/2014 04:13 PM, Sumit Naiksatam wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Kevin Benton blak
I would reword that to:
'/your_application_may_break_after_juno_if_you_use_this/'
in the event of the possibility that it doesn't break. ;-)
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should merge it and just prefix the API for now with
I definitely agree that such cross-pollination across projects is ideal.
However, I think (and not to deviate from the general discussion on
making blueprint specs review more effective), Kevin's question was
specifically in the context of the GBP blueprint. It is not clear in
that case that a
Nice work Sukhdev, worth commending! Thanks for sharing!!
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Baohua Yang yangbao...@gmail.com wrote:
Woo~
Really nice work!
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Sukhdev Kapur sukhdevka...@gmail.com
wrote:
Folks,
Just wanted to share with you that Arista CI has
And while we are on this, just wanted to remind all those interested
to attend the weekly GBP meeting later today:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron_Group_Policy
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Mike Cohen co...@noironetworks.com wrote:
Its good to see such a lively debate about
Indeed, thanks much Eugene for taking on this critical activity.
Please let me know if I can help in any way as well.
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Eugene Nikanorov
enikano...@mirantis.com wrote:
Hi neutron folks,
What's the convention for adding images to the patch? The following
directory structure seemed logical to me (but the current UT will not
allow it):
specs/juno/bp-name/bp-name.rst
specs/juno/bp-name/images/image1.png
Thanks,
~Sumit.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Carl Baldwin
We realized it the hard way that we didn't have the entire one hour
slot on -meeting-alt at 17:30 on Thursdays.
So, we have to move this meeting again. Based on the opinion of those
present in today's meeting, there was a consensus for the following
time:
Thursdays at 1800 UTC on
Edgar, There is a weekly IRC meeting to discuss to discuss Neutron
advanced services related topics -
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/AdvancedServices
Service insertion and chaining is one of them, and there is a sub team
working on it. Per the PTL, there will soon be a standing item in
The BP spec has been posted (thanks Eugene):
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90070/1
The topic of flavors is also discussed in the weekly Neutron
advanced services' meeting:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/AdvancedServices
~Sumit.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Eugene Nikanorov
The so called multivendor work is dependent now on the flavors
framework. Patches were presented in the Icehouse release to enable
multivendor support using the service-type-framework, however there
were concerns on the use of that framework, and hence those patches
were not approved in time.
A
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your input and welcome to the OpenStack community! Your
research area is pretty interesting, and you are right, we are kind of
in unchartered territory as far as the definition of Firewall as a
Service (FWaaS) in an IaaS context is concerned. Our FWaaS API has
evolved based on
Hi, Unfortunately I could not participate in this discussion. As
requested in this thread earlier, it would be good to get a summary of
the discussion.
We, in the advanced services team in Neutron, have long discussed[1]
the possibility of accommodating a tap service. So I would like to
Thanks for initiating this conversation. Unfortunately I was not able
to participate during the summit on account of overlapping sessions.
As has been identified in the wiki and etherpad, there seem to be
obvious/potential touch points with the advanced services' discussion
we are having in
Paul good points, and I am very happy to read that your expectations
are very closely aligned with the direction we have taken (in terms of
decoupling of the group policy layer from the underlying building
blocks).
Thanks also Kyle for your earlier email. I believe the team has always
been
Hi Bob, The approach towards having the neutron.manager.NeutronManager
provide access to the Controller classes seems like something worth
exploring for the shorter term.
Thanks,
~Sumit.
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Robert Kukura
kuk...@noironetworks.com wrote:
On 5/23/14, 12:46 AM,
There seems to be a fair bit of confusion with the PoC/prototype
patches. As such, and per reviewer feedback to introduce the Endpoint
Group related patch sooner than later, we will start a new series. You
will see this first patch land shortly, and we can incrementally make
progress from there.
During the Neutron Advanced Services' meeting this week [1], we
discussed a plan to make the review process more predictable and
accountable (as an experiment within this sub-team).
We are soliciting reviewers who will commit to reviewing at least the
prioritized blueprints [2] on a weekly basis
at 11:50 PM, Ivar Lazzaro ivarlazz...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sumit,
Review commitment sound like a good idea. Is this aiming core reviewers
only?
What number of cores / non cores are you ideally trying to reach?
Thanks,
Ivar.
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa
+1, Andreas has been very responsive, prompt, and helpful in his reviews.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Sergey Lukjanov
slukja...@mirantis.com wrote:
+1
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote:
On 09/26/2014 11:35 AM, James E. Blair wrote:
I'm pleased to
:Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com
To:OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date:09/23/2014 04:33 AM
Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] Group-Based Policy Understanding and
Queries
Hi, For the past couple of weeks one of the agenda items on our weekly
IRC meetings [1][2] has been to finalize on resources' naming
convention to avoid any conflict/confusion in the future. Based on
community feedback we had earlier agreed to rename Endpoints and
Endpoint Groups to Policy
Hi, We are meeting in the #openstack-gbp channel today (10/14) 18.00 UTC to
jointly review some of the pending patches:
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:stackforge/group-based-policy+branch:master,n,z
Please join if you would like to provide feedback.
Thanks,
~Sumit.
Several people have been requesting that we resume the Advanced
Services' meetings [1] to discuss some of the topics being mentioned
in this thread. Perhaps it might help people to have a focussed
discussion on the topic of advanced services' spin-out prior to the
design summit session [2] in
Hi, We will be meeting in the #openstack-gbp channel on 10/28 at 16.00
UTC to jointly review some of the pending patches:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/128559/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/128551/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/128552/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/128555/
Hi,
We had a productive design session discussion on Tuesday. However, we
could not get to the point where we discussed all the next steps and
specific action items for Juno/Kilo GBP releases. We will be meeting
tomorrow (Thursday) morning from in the Le Meridian to cover these.
Time: 10 to 11
Hi All,
Following up from the discussions during the Kilo Summit, we will be
resuming the Advanced Services' meetings [1]. The new day/time will be
Tuesday 17.00 UTC on #openstack-meeting-4 to follow the LBaaS meeting
[2].
Hope you can join.
Thanks,
~Sumit.
[1]
steering? Is there some place or etherpad with
a summary of what was discussed/outlined?
The breakout session used the same etherpad as the design summit session:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-gbp-design-summit-topics
Thanks,
~Sumit.
Cheers,
On 5 November 2014 17:22, Sumit Naiksatam
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Mohammad Hanif mha...@brocade.com wrote:
I agree with Paul as advanced services go beyond just L4-L7. Today, VPNaaS
deals with L3 connectivity but belongs in advanced services. Where does
Edge-VPN work belong? We need a broader definition for advanced
that would not be accurate (in the context of any of existing three
services, or proposed new services).
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Sumit Naiksatam
sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Mohammad Hanif mha...@brocade.com wrote:
I agree with Paul as advanced services
Thanks Salvatore. That's right, the configuration for server and port
resides in:
etc/quantum/plugins/bigswitch/restproxy.ini
Let us know if you need further help.
~Sumit.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
Hi Julio,
If I get your message correctly,
I agree with Andre and Kyle here. I am not sure that the polling
option is even going to work for certain use cases where the host_id
information is required when creating the port (for instance, to
decide the VIF type).
Thanks,
~Sumit.
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery)
+1, congrats and welcome Kyle and Armando.
~Sumit.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Mark McClain
mark.mccl...@dreamhost.com wrote:
All-
I'd like to propose that Kyle Mestery and Armando Migliaccio be added to the
Neutron core team. Both have been very active with valuable reviews and
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
