Re: [openstack-dev] [Release-job-failures][group-based-policy] Release of openstack/group-based-policy failed

Thanks Doug for noticing this. I am guessing this was a transient issue. How do we trigger this job again to confirm? On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from zuul's message of 2018-07-10 06:38:24 +: >> Build failed. >> >> - release-openstack-python >>

Re: [openstack-dev] Help required to install devstack with GBP

Hi, Sure we can help you. Could you please take a look at the neutron logs and let me know what exception you are seeing? Also, please let me know which branch you are trying to install. Thanks, ~Sumit. On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 1:52 AM, ., Alex Dominic Savio < alex.will...@microfocus.com> wrote:

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][QA][group-based-policy][zaqar][packaging_deb][fuel][networking-*] Marking <= mitaka EOL

Hi Tony, Thanks for reaching out. With regards to “group-based-policy”, branches < mitaka (meaning Liberty or older) can be EOL’ed. We would still like to have the stable/mitaka branches for a little more time if that’s possible. This applies to the repos: group-based-policy

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging mitaka as EOL

Hi Tony, Kindly do not EOL openstack/group-based-policy, we are maintaining this branch. Thanks, ~Sumit. On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Tony Breeds wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 08:20:50AM -0600, Alex Schultz wrote: > >> I would not include puppet-midonet without

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-Infra] [all][stable][ptls] Tagging liberty as EOL

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:54 AM, Joshua Hesketh wrote: > The repos listed[0] have had stable/liberty branch removed and replaced with > a liberty-eol tag. Any open reviews have been abandoned. > > Please let me know if there are any mistakes or latecomers to the list.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Group-based-policy] Question on GBP installation

Hi Yuki, Thanks for your email. We are currently in the process of updating the packages, and will update this webpage once that happens. Thanks, ~Sumit. On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:17 AM, Yuki Miyahara wrote: > Hi GBP Team, > > Now I'm trying to install OpenStack

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Tagging kilo-eol for "the world"

this, or is this already on the radar of the infra team (thanks in advance if it already is)? ~Sumit. On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Tony Breeds <t...@bakeyournoodle.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:20:12AM -0700, Sumit Naiksatam wrote: >> Hi, I had earlier requested

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Tagging kilo-eol for "the world"

Hi, I had earlier requested in this thread that the stable/kilo branch for the following repos be not deleted: > openstack/group-based-policy > openstack/group-based-policy-automation > openstack/group-based-policy-ui > openstack/python-group-based-policy-client and the request was ack’ed by

Re: [openstack-dev] [Group-based-policy] what does policy rule action redirect do

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:17 AM, yong sheng gong <18618199...@163.com> wrote: > hi, > > I have followed the steps at > https://github.com/openstack/group-based-policy/blob/master/gbpservice/tests/contrib/devstack/exercises/gbp_servicechain.sh > > and I can see the firewall and lb are created

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Tagging kilo-eol for "the world"

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 10 Jun 2016, at 00:03, Sumit Naiksatam <sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Tagging kilo-eol for "the world"

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 09 Jun 2016, at 11:16, Sumit Naiksatam <sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Tony, The following repos should not be included in the EoL list since >> they will not be

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Tagging kilo-eol for "the world"

Hi Tony, The following repos should not be included in the EoL list since they will not be EoL'ed at this time: openstack/group-based-policy openstack/group-based-policy-automation openstack/group-based-policy-ui openstack/python-group-based-policy-client Thanks, Sumit. On Jun 9, 2016 12:16 AM,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Group-based-policy] Service Chain work with LBaaS/FWaaS

Hi Yao, Responses inline. Thanks, ~Sumit. On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:32 AM, 姚威 wrote: > Hi all, > > I know that GBP can work with neutron(ml2) by resource_mapping, and > group/policy all work well. > Assume that I have installed and enabled LBaaS and FWaaS，can I use

Re: [openstack-dev] [Group Based Policy] [Policy] [GBP]

Hi, Thanks for your question, but we haven’t explored this option. We will be happy to discuss this and provide any help/pointers you may need. Please feel free to join our weekly IRC meeting and/or drop into the #openstack-gbp channel to discuss further. ~Sumit. On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 9:10 AM,

Re: [openstack-dev] [group-based-policy] Meeting today

Hi Igor, Yes, no meeting today. We discussed in last week’s IRC. Happy Thanksgiving! ;-) Best, ~Sumit. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Duarte Cardoso, Igor wrote: > Hi GBP team, > > > > Is the meeting today not going to happen due to US Thanksgiving? > > > > Best

Re: [openstack-dev] [group-based-policy] QoS support in GBP

Thanks Igor. This is certainly of interest, let’s discuss during the IRC meeting today. Just a friendly reminder - for those in those in the US time zones, we start an earlier today on account on the fall time changes. ~Sumit. On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Duarte Cardoso, Igor <

Re: [openstack-dev] [Group-based-policy]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Duarte Cardoso, Igor < igor.duarte.card...@intel.com> wrote: > Hi Ernesto, > > > > Let me answer the first question for you. > > > > You can use GBP without OpenDaylight. > > > > OpenDaylight has a separate Group-based Policy project, which might make > you wonder

Re: [openstack-dev] [Policy][Group-based-policy] SFC Use Case

wrote: > Hi Sumit, > Can you kindly share an example yaml file for firewall. With my yaml file I > am able to create vm through heat but while creating service node it says > "Invalid file format". > > Regards. > Naresh > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Sumit N

Re: [openstack-dev] [Policy][Group-based-policy] Service chain node creation fails

Hi Naresh, I can try and help you with this. Can you unicast the file to me? Thanks, ~Sumit. On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 10:26 PM, NareshA kumar wrote: > Hi, > When I try to create a Service chain node by giving the yaml file as heat > template it says "Invalid file

Re: [openstack-dev] [Policy][Group-based-policy] SFC Use Case

Hi Naresh, You should be able to use the same heat templates. Thanks, ~Sumit. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 3:06 AM, NareshA kumar wrote: > Hi, > I have tried GBP in Kilo. Now I want to try GBP+SFC integration in Kilo. > Regarding which i have few questions, > > Is GBP+SFC

Re: [openstack-dev] [Policy][Group-based-policy]

Hi Sagar, GBP has a single REST API interface. The CLI, Horizon and Heat are merely clients of the same REST API. There was a similar question on this which I had responded to in a different mailer: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/2015-September/013952.html and I believe you are

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [fwaas] -IPv6 support in Kilo

Hi Rukhsana, When you say IPv6 support for FWaaS in Kilo can you indicate exactly what you are looking for? The FWaaS rules in the resource model support both formats (which I recall has always been the case). A particular implementation/driver may not support ipv6 (and which is what you are

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][FWaaS] No IRC meeting on May 13th and 20th

Hi, Per agreement in the last IRC meeting we will not be having the IRC meeting for the next couple of weeks. See you all in Vancouver! ~Sumit. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe:

[openstack-dev] [neutron][FWaaS] No weekly IRC meeting today (04/22)

Hi, Since some of the regular folks are not going be available for the meeting today, it was suggested that we skip the meeting today. Best, ~Sumit. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Re: [openstack-dev] [Group-Based-Policy] Fixing backward incompatible unnamed constraints removal

Thanks Ivar for tracking this and bringing it up for discussion. I am good with taking approach (1). On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Ivar Lazzaro ivarlazz...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Team, As per discussion in the latest GBP meeting [0] I'm hunting down all the backward incompatible changes

Re: [openstack-dev] [Group-Based-Policy] Service Chain Instance ownership

Hi Ivar, Thanks for bringing this up and my apologies for the late response (although I noticed that you already provided a fix, so thankfully you were not blocked ;-)). As discussed during the GBP IRC meeting, my suggestion would also be to use the first option, and create the service chain

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Group Based Policy project proposal

more information via ML, and/or IRC on the #openstack-gbp channel. Thanks, ~Sumit, IRC: SumitNaiksatam (on behalf of GBP-team). [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/059317.html [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/161902 On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Sumit

[openstack-dev] Group Based Policy - Kilo-2 development milestone

Hi All, The second milestone release of the Kilo development cycle, “kilo-2 is now available for the Group Based Policy project. It contains a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements over the previous release. You can find the full list of fixed bugs, features, as well as tarball downloads, at:

Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][congress][group-policy] Fetching policy from a remote source

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Adam Young ayo...@redhat.com wrote: Oslo policy has been released as a stand alone library. This is great, in that the rules engine is relatively non-applicaition specific, and I assume that all of the policy based project are planning to migrate over to using

Re: [openstack-dev] [Group-Based-Policy] How to deal with improvements

Hi Ivar, My personal preference is to see information related to a particular feature in one place. So in cases like the ones you describe, I would propose that we update the existing spec. Of course, there is the problem of updating the same spec across different releases (since we create a new

[openstack-dev] [Group-based-policy][GBP] PTL Candidacy

in playing a part in GBP’s mission to fully realize the intent-based policy-driven abstractions' model. Best, Sumit Naiksatam. (IRC: SumitNaiksatam) [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GroupBasedPolicy [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/058783.html [3] http

[openstack-dev] [tc] Group Based Policy project proposal

Hi All, The OpenStack Group Based Policy team of contributors has submitted a proposal [1] to add “Group Based Policy” as a project in the OpenStack namespace in accordance with the new governance changes [2]. We would request the TC to take note and consider this proposal during the next

Re: [openstack-dev] [Policy][Group-based-policy] Bug squashing day

Thanks to the entire team for participating today, we made very good progress with knocking off a number of long standing bugs. We will also be cutting a new stable/juno release towards the end of this week since we ended up back porting quite a few fixes. On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Sumit

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] FWaaS - question about drivers

Inline... On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Vikram Choudhary vikram.choudh...@huawei.com wrote: Hi, You can write your own driver. You can refer to below links for getting some idea about the architecture. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/ServiceTypeFramework This is a legacy

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] FWaaS - question about drivers

/ Best regards Sławek Kapłoński sla...@kaplonski.pl Dnia piątek, 20 lutego 2015 14:44:21 Sumit Naiksatam pisze: Inline... On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Vikram Choudhary vikram.choudh...@huawei.com wrote: Hi, You can write your own driver. You can refer to below links for getting

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] FWaaS - question about drivers

piątek, 20 lutego 2015 14:44:21 Sumit Naiksatam pisze: Inline... On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Vikram Choudhary vikram.choudh...@huawei.com wrote: Hi, You can write your own driver. You can refer to below links for getting some idea about the architecture. https

[openstack-dev] Group Based Policy - Kilo-1 development milestone

Hi All, The first milestone release of the Kilo development cycle, “kilo-1 is now available for the Group Based Policy project. It contains a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements over the previous release. You can find the full list of fixed bugs, features, as well as tarball downloads, at:

[openstack-dev] [neutron][fwaas] No IRC meeting on Feb 11th eom

__ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Policy][Group-based-policy] Policy violations investigation

Hi Ariel, This is indeed one of the use cases that is very relevant to, and can be supported, with the GBP model. The GBP policy actions provide a way to “redirect” to a service-instance/chain on matching a traffic classifier. If you are able to represent the “honeypot” functionality as a Neutron

Re: [openstack-dev] [Policy][Group-based-policy] ODL Policy Driver Specs

:Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com To:OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date:11/26/2014 01:35 PM Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] [Policy][Group-based-policy] ODL Policy DriverSpecs

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][FWaaS] No FWaaS meeting on Jan 14th

We will skip today's FWaaS IRC meeting since a number of people in the team are not available. Thanks, ~Sumit. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe:

[openstack-dev] [all] Group Based Policy - Announcing Release

The first release of Group Based Policy (GBP) [1] is now available! It is designed to work with OpenStack stable Juno, and comprises of four components: Service, Client, Heat Automation, and Horizon UI This release includes GBP network policy drivers for connectivity rendering using Neutron,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Policy][Group-based-policy] ODL Policy Driver Specs

explain the difference between gbp group-create and gbp policy-target-group-create?? I think both these are working same. Thanks Regards Sachi Gupta From:Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com To:OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev

[openstack-dev] [Group-based-policy] New addition to the core team

Hi, I would like to propose Magesh GV (magesh-gv) to the Group-based Policy (GBP) core team based on his excellent contribution to the project. We discussed this during the weekly IRC meeting [1] and the current core team unanimously supports this. Let us know if there are any objections,

Re: [openstack-dev] 答复: Re: [neutron][AdvancedServices] Confusion about the solution of the service chaining!

-chaining' ? The current model and implementation leverage the Neutron services as is (the model is actually agnostic of the service definition/implementation). Will be happy to further discuss this, feel free to ping on #openstack-gbp. Thanks, ~Sumit. BR Alan 发件人: Sumit Naiksatam

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][AdvancedServices] Confusion about the solution of the service chaining!

Hi Alan, Responses inline... On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:25 AM, lv.erc...@zte.com.cn wrote: Hi, I want to confirm that how is the project about Neutron Services Insertion, Chaining, and Steering going, I found that all the code implementation about service insertion、service chaining and

[openstack-dev] [neutron][FWaaS] No weekly IRC meetings on Dec 24th and 31st

Hi, We will skip the meetings for the next two weeks since most team members are not available to meet. Please continue to keep the discussions going over the mailing and lists and the IRC channel. Check back on the wiki page for the next meeting and agenda [1]. Thanks, ~Sumit. [1]

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][Advanced Services] Suspending weekly IRC meetings

Hi All, Since the split of the Neutron services (FWaaS, LBaaS, VPNaaS) into individual repositories is done, and the follow-up activities are progressing, I am proposing that we suspend the weekly IRC Advanced Services' meeting [1] until we need it again. Thanks, ~Sumit. [1]

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Changes to the core team

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Adam Young ayo...@redhat.com wrote: On 12/03/2014 06:24 PM, Sukhdev Kapur wrote: Congratulations Henry and Kevin. It has always been pleasure working with you guys. If I may express my opinion, Bob's contribution to ML2 has been quite substantial. The

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][neutron] Proposal to split Neutron into separate repositories

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Policy][Group-based-policy] GBP Juno/Kilo next steps meeting

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

[openstack-dev] [neutron][advanced services] Weekly IRC meeting day/time change

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]

[openstack-dev] [Policy][Group-based-policy] GBP Juno/Kilo next steps meeting

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

[openstack-dev] [Policy][Group-based Policy] Review meeting for service redirect/chain patches

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/

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Octavia's API becoming spun out LBaaS

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

[openstack-dev] [Group-based Policy] Review of patches

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.

[openstack-dev] [Group-based Policy] Today's IRC meeting summary and renaming of resources

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] Nominating Andreas Jaeger for project-config-core

+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

Re: [openstack-dev] [controller-dev] Group-Based Policy Understanding and Queries

: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

Re: [openstack-dev] Group-Based Policy Understanding and Queries

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][policy] Group-based Policy next steps

, 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

[openstack-dev] [neutron][policy] Group-based Policy next steps

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Incubator concerns from packaging perspective

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

Re: [openstack-dev] Network/Incubator proposal (was Re: [Octavia] Minutes from 8/13/2014 meeting)

+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

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Which changes need accompanying bugs?

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][FWaaS]Firewall Web Services Research Thesis and OpenStack Applicability - UPDATED

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

Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: FW: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

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

Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: FW: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [third-party] Freescale CI log site is being blocked

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][policy] Group Based Policy - Renaming

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:

Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: FW: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Simple proposal for stabilizing new features in-tree

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][policy] Group Based Policy - Renaming

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

Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: FW: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and theway forward

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Bug squashing day

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,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

, 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

Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: FW: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

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

Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: FW: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

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

Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: FW: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

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

Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: FW: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

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

Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][third-party] Arista CI hits 10, 000 runs this morning

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

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

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][policy] Long standing -2 on Group-based policy 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

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][policy] Group-based Policy weekly meeting invite and agenda

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: *

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][policy] Bridging the 2-group gap in group policy

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][policy] Group-based Policy code sprint

://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

Re: [openstack-dev] will juno support IPSet ?

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Group-based Policy code sprint

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Flavor framework proposal

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

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Group-based Policy code sprint

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [congress] mid-cycle policy summit

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

Re: [openstack-dev] DVR and FWaaS integration

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

[openstack-dev] [neutron] Specs repo

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. ___

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [FWaaS] [sequritygroup] [Development]

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][group-based-policy] GP mapping driver

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

  1   2   >