E/W traffic (which has
challenges), but for me it looks easier to implement the same in N/S
with the
current DVR architecture, but there might be less takers on that.
--
Thanks,
Vivek
*From:*Yi Sun [mailto:beyo...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, July 03, 2014 11:50 AM
*To:* openstack-dev
Cell: 0086 158 118 117 96 Email:
joehu...@huawei.com
Huawei Area B2-3-D018S Bantian, Longgang District,Shenzhen 518129,
P.R.China
*???:*Yi Sun [mailto:beyo...@gmail.com]
*:*2014?7?3?4:42
*???:*OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
*??:*Kyle Mestery (kmestery); R
Monday should work for me. We can do either IRC, google hang out, GMT or
even a face to face.
For anyone interested, please propose your preferred time.
Thanks
Yi
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Carl Baldwin wrote:
> In line...
>
> On Jun 25, 2014 2:02 PM, "Yi Sun" wrote:
>
Carl,
For the overlap IP, I was thinking about whether we could have a case
where two VMs have the same subnet but belongs to different network. So
if we create policy base on subnet, how will it work.
Yi
On 6/29/14, 12:43 PM, Carl Baldwin wrote:
In line...
On Jun 25, 2014 2:02 PM, &qu
Another approach would be to use a single IP address per router
per compute
node. This avoids the multi-tenant issue mentioned above, at the
cost of
consuming more IP addresses, potentially one default SNAT IP
address for each
VM on the compute server (which is the c
All,
During last summit, we were talking about the integration issues between
DVR and FWaaS. After the summit, I had one IRC meeting with DVR team. But
after that meeting I was tight up with my work and did not get time to
continue to follow up the issue. To not slow down the discussion, I'm
forwar
I don't think the "shared" is fully implemented yet. It is not a bug, it
is just an uncompleted feature.
Yi
On 6/5/14, 9:05 PM, Xurong Yang wrote:
Hi, Gary
Thanks for your response, i have created router, the fact is that
firewall rules don't update share status when updating the
correspo
Is this the one?
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/92541/
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Steve Gordon wrote:
> Hi Alan/Balazs,
>
> In one of the NFV BoF sessions in Atlanta one of you (I assume one of you
> anyway!) noted in the etherpad [1] (line 89) that Ericsson had submitted a
> patch to
More info, I add a follow up comment on an old change set, and then it
happened.
Yi
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 2:49 AM, Carlos Gonçalves wrote:
> I was able to broke the loop by uploading a new patchset to Gerrit.
> Infra team, could you please clean the mess caused by Jenkins on Gerrit,
> please?
I'm interested in it. UTC8
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:01 PM, shihanzhang wrote:
> I'm interested in it. UTC8.
>
>
> At 2014-02-15 00:31:47,"punal patel" wrote:
>
> I am interested. UTC - 8.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Nick Ma wrote:
>
>> I'm also interested in it. UTC8.
>>
>> --
>
Ian,
Could you unlock your doc at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16DDJLYHxMmbCPO5LxW_kp610oj4goiic_oTakJiXjTs?
It require a permission to read.
Thanks
Yi
On 12/18/13, 4:20 AM, Ian Wells wrote:
A Neutron network is analagous to a wire between ports. We can do
almost everything with this wi
On 12/17/13, 6:36 AM, Erik Moe wrote:
Hi,
thanks for your comments.
see answers below.
Thanks,
Erik
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Isaku Yamahata
mailto:isaku.yamah...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Added openstack-dev
The document is view-only. So I commented below.
- 2 Modeling p
gt;
> On Nov 4, 2013, at 10:20 PM, Yi Sun
> wrote:
>
> > Guys,
> > I just checked the schedule of unconference sessions. There are no free
> slots anymore.
> >
> > Yi
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 29, 2013, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > Hi Erik and Li
Guys,
I just checked the schedule of unconference sessions. There are no free
slots anymore.
Yi
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> Hi Erik and Li.
> Unconference at the next summit?
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 02:34:28PM -0700,
> beyounn > wrote:
>
> > Hi Erik,
> >
> > While w
I think the support of the subnet should be part of address object or address
book object. We should not eliminate the possibility to run firewall as an
add-on service on top of a virtual router. As matter fact, there are many VM
based firewall providing certain level of routing service anyway.
Yes, if we can do that it will be perfect. How should we arrange this? I
will arrive at the morning of 5th.
Yi
On Monday, October 28, 2013, Erik Moe wrote:
>
> Hi Yamahata,
>
> yes, unconference sounds good.
>
> I agree that quantum-network-bundle-api is in the same area. I missed this
> blueprin
16 matches
Mail list logo
