On 20 November 2014 02:08, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
>
>
> On 20 November 2014 02:19, Sukhdev Kapur wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Like Ian, I am jumping in this very late as well - as I decided to travel
>> Europe after the summit, just returned back and catching up :-):-)
>>
>> I have noticed that t
Hi Sukhdev,
Hope you enjoyed Europe ;)
On 19 November 2014 17:19, Sukhdev Kapur wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Like Ian, I am jumping in this very late as well - as I decided to travel
> Europe after the summit, just returned back and catching up :-):-)
>
> I have noticed that this thread has gotten fair
On 19 November 2014 17:19, Sukhdev Kapur wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Like Ian, I am jumping in this very late as well - as I decided to travel
> Europe after the summit, just returned back and catching up :-):-)
>
> I have noticed that this thread has gotten fairly convoluted and painful
> to read.
>
>
On 20 November 2014 02:19, Sukhdev Kapur wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Like Ian, I am jumping in this very late as well - as I decided to travel
> Europe after the summit, just returned back and catching up :-):-)
>
> I have noticed that this thread has gotten fairly convoluted and painful
> to read.
>
>
Folks,
Like Ian, I am jumping in this very late as well - as I decided to travel
Europe after the summit, just returned back and catching up :-):-)
I have noticed that this thread has gotten fairly convoluted and painful to
read.
I think Armando summed it up well in the beginning of the thread.
Hi,
On 18 November 2014 16:22, Ian Wells wrote:
> Sorry I'm a bit late to this, but that's what you get from being on
> holiday... (Which is also why there are no new MTU and VLAN specs yet, but
> I swear I'll get to them.)
>
Ah! I hope it was good at least :)
>
> On 17 November 2014 01:13,
Sorry I'm a bit late to this, but that's what you get from being on
holiday... (Which is also why there are no new MTU and VLAN specs yet, but
I swear I'll get to them.)
On 17 November 2014 01:13, Mathieu Rohon wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> > Last Friday
On 17 November 2014 01:13, Mathieu Rohon wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> > Last Friday I recall we had two discussions around this topic. One in the
> > morning, which I think led to Maruti to push [1]. The way I understood
> [1]
> > was that it is an attempt
What would be the best meeting to discuss these works and any
others related? Maybe, collectively, a very flexible solution for all
related use cases could be found.
I also want to go forward with some work I've developed a couple months
ago, part of "methods to connect x to a neutron l2 segment",
Sorry, it's early, I was being imprecise and using trunk to mean, "methods to
connect x to a neutron (l2 segment".
Doug
On Nov 17, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Salvatore Orlando
mailto:sorla...@nicira.com>> wrote:
I think this thread is about the L2 gateway service... how's that related with
the notion
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:13:50AM +0100,
Mathieu Rohon wrote:
> Hi
Hi.
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> > Last Friday I recall we had two discussions around this topic. One in the
> > morning, which I think led to Maruti to push [1]. The way I understood [1]
> > was tha
I think this thread is about the L2 gateway service... how's that related
with the notion of trunk port?
I know that the spec under review adds a component which is tantamount to a
L2 gateway, but while the functionality is similar, the use case, and
therefore the API exposed, are rather different
> On Nov 17, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Mathieu Rohon wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>> Last Friday I recall we had two discussions around this topic. One in the
>> morning, which I think led to Maruti to push [1]. The way I understood [1]
>> was that it is an atte
Hi
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> Last Friday I recall we had two discussions around this topic. One in the
> morning, which I think led to Maruti to push [1]. The way I understood [1]
> was that it is an attempt at unifying [2] and [3], by choosing the API
> approach of one
Last Friday I recall we had two discussions around this topic. One in the
morning, which I think led to Maruti to push [1]. The way I understood [1]
was that it is an attempt at unifying [2] and [3], by choosing the API
approach of one and the architectural approach of the other.
[1] https://revie
: Salvatore Orlando [mailto:sorla...@nicira.com]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:17 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] L2 gateway as a service
Thanks guys.
I think you've answered my initial question. Probably not i
Thanks guys.
I think you've answered my initial question. Probably not in the way I was
hoping it to be answered, but it's ok.
So now we have potentially 4 different blueprint describing more or less
overlapping use cases that we need to reconcile into one?
If the above is correct, then I suggest
Hello all,
Also, what about Kevin's https://review.openstack.org/#/c/87825/? One of
its use cases is exactly the L2 gateway. These proposals could probably be
inserted in a more generic work for moving existing datacenter L2 resources
to Neutron.
Cheers,
On 14 November 2014 15:28, Mathieu Rohon w
Hi,
As far as I understood last friday afternoon dicussions during the
design summit, this use case is in the scope of another umbrella spec
which would define external connectivity for neutron networks. Details
of those connectivity would be defined through service plugin API.
Ian do you plan to
Thanks Maruti,
I have some comments and questions which I've posted on gerrit.
There are two things I would like to discuss on the mailing list concerning
this effort.
1) Is this spec replacing https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100278 and
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/93613 - I hope so, otherw
20 matches
Mail list logo
