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 (Liberty) with GBP on RHEL7.2[1
Hi GBP Team,
Now I'm trying to install OpenStack (Liberty) with GBP on RHEL7.2[1],
but I can't find following packages from
https://www.rdoproject.org/repos/rdo-release.rpm.
- openstack-neutron-gbp
- python-gbpclient
- openstack-dashboard-gbp
Do you know where it is?
[1] https://www.rdoprojec
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 right.
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 right.
But I thought the vm client-1's traffic will be redirected to firewall, lb and
las
hi,
I have followed the steps
athttps://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 right.
But I thought the vm client-1's traffic will be redirected to firewall, lb and
last to
Hi GBP,
While I was working on the QoS PoC for GBP I observed that policy targets
require to be associated to a PTG. They also don't seem to be updatable with a
different PTG, at least not with the CLI. However, looking at the API I see,
for policy targets:
'policy_target_group_id': {'
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 service
> chain of gbp by `cha
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 service
chain of gbp by `chain_mapping` or other plugins ?
Another question. I use GBP and Cisco APIC as native driver, w
I find this URL very useful for Group Based Policy:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GroupBasedPolicy
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GroupBasedPolicy
Also GitHub usually has good description on how to install.
Hope this is useful, have a nice weekend,
anthony.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:58
Hi,I failed to find any usage doc about GBP project's SFC feature.Could any one
please help to point me to the location?
Thanksyong sheng gong__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: opensta
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,
Hello,
how can i write an application with gbp using the libcloud? Thanks in
advance. Best regards,
ernesto
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack
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 regards,
>
>
>
> Igor Duarte Ca
Hi GBP team,
Is the meeting today not going to happen due to US Thanksgiving?
Best regards,
Igor Duarte Cardoso
-
Intel Research and Development Ireland Limited
Registered in Ireland
Registered Office: Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare
Registered Number: 308263
__
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 <
igor.duarte.c
Hi OpenStack Group-based Policy team,
As I unofficially said before, I am interested in bringing basic QoS to GBP via
the Neutron QoS API which currently offers bandwidth limitation at the port and
network level, since Liberty.
I have added the item to today's Meeting Agenda for an initial disc
gineer
>
> +353 61 777 858
>
> SIE1-2-170
>
> Intel Shannon Ltd.
>
> Dromore House, East Park
>
> Shannon, Co. Clare
>
> IRELAND
>
>
>
> *From:* Ernesto Valentino [mailto:ern.valent...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 10, 2015 3:05 PM
> *To
: [openstack-dev] [Group-based-policy]
Dear sirs,
I'm a student trying to testing Group Based Policy functionalities. I have some
questions about it, because from the documentation is not clear to me what role
assume opendaylight in the plug-in.
I can use gbp only with openstack or is mand
Dear sirs,
I'm a student trying to testing Group Based Policy functionalities. I have
some questions about it, because from the documentation is not clear to me
what role assume opendaylight in the plug-in.
I can use gbp only with openstack or is mandatory to use it with
opendaylight? And next, if
I believe that, on the stable branch at least, we need to fix the
migrations so that upgrades are possible. This probably means fixing
them the same way on the master branch first and backporting the fixes
to stable/juno. All migrations that were present in the initial juno
release need to be r
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 wrote:
> Hello Team,
>
> As per discussion in the latest GBP meeting [0] I'm hunting down all the
> backward incompatible changes made on DB migrati
Hello Team,
As per discussion in the latest GBP meeting [0] I'm hunting down all the
backward incompatible changes made on DB migrations regarding the removal
of unnamed constraints.
In this report [1] you can find the list of affected commits.
The problem is that some of the affected commits are
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 instan
Ivar,
With the currently supported set of services I also agree, but as more
services get supported in the future, or we hand out that choice to
tenants' VMs, it starts to justify a generic model that does not
restrict whether EPs should provide service chains.
That said, I do not yet totally und
Hello,
As a follow up on [0] I have a question for the community.
There are multiple use cases for a PTG *providing* a ServiceChain which is
*consumed* by an External Policy (think about LB/FW/IDS and so forth).
However, given the current set of services we support, I don't see any use
case for ha
Hello Folks,
[tl;dr]
On implicit chains, the Service Chain Instance ownership in GBP is
inconsistent, depending on the actor triggering the chain. Possible
solution is to have all the implicit SCI owned by an admin, or by the
provider of the chain. Any suggestion is welcome.
[boringpostwithexamp
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:
http
Sumit's candidacy for GBP PTL is confirmed!
Regards
Malini
-Original Message-
From: Sumit Naiksatam [mailto:sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:04 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Cc: Bhandaru, Malini K
Subject: [Group-based-poli
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 di
Hi All,
I would like to announce my candidacy for the Group Based Policy (GBP)
[1] project’s PTL position [2].
I have been involved with GBP for more than a year now. I was
responsible for setting it up as a StackForge project across multiple
repositories, and have been serving as the de facto le
Hello Folks,
As a follow up of [0] I was working on a proposal for adding the same
sharing capabilities to servicechain constructs. While thinking about the
use cases for doing this, a question came to my mind: How should I deal
with this improvement from a process perspective?
I'm not sure addi
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:
https
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, otherwise
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.
>
> It seems to me that deployment tools such as puppet scripts would also be
> simpler if the GBP service plugin used the neutron DB, as there would be no
> need to create a separate DB, set its permissions, put its URL into
> neutron's config file, etc.. All that would be needed at deployment tim
On 10/7/14 6:36 PM, Ivar Lazzaro wrote:
I posted a patch that implements the "Different DB Different Chain"
approach [0].
That does not mean that this approach is the chosen one! It's just to
have a grasp of what the change looks like.
The "Same DB different chain" solution is much simpler to
I posted a patch that implements the "Different DB Different Chain"
approach [0].
That does not mean that this approach is the chosen one! It's just to have
a grasp of what the change looks like.
The "Same DB different chain" solution is much simpler to implement
(basically you just specify a diff
>
> I believe Group-based Policy (which this thread is about) will use the
> Neutron
> database configuration for its dependent database.
>
> If Neutron is configured for:
> connection = mysql://user:pass@locationX:3306/neutron
> then GBP would use:
> connection = mysql://user:pass@locationX:33
On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:24 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Mike Bayer's message of 2014-10-04 08:10:38 -0700:
>>
>> On Oct 4, 2014, at 1:10 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
>>
>>> Does sqlalchemy have good support for cross-database foreign keys? I was
>>> under the impression that they canno
Clint Byrum wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Mike Bayer's message of 2014-10-04 08:10:38 -0700:
>>
>> On Oct 4, 2014, at 1:10 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
>>
>>> Does sqlalchemy have good support for cross-database foreign keys? I was
>>> under the impression that they cannot be implemented with the normal
Excerpts from Mike Bayer's message of 2014-10-04 08:10:38 -0700:
>
> On Oct 4, 2014, at 1:10 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
>
> > Does sqlalchemy have good support for cross-database foreign keys? I was
> > under the impression that they cannot be implemented with the normal syntax
> > and semantics
On Oct 4, 2014, at 1:10 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> Does sqlalchemy have good support for cross-database foreign keys? I was
> under the impression that they cannot be implemented with the normal syntax
> and semantics of an intra-database foreign-key constraint.
cross “database” is not typic
Does sqlalchemy have good support for cross-database foreign keys? I was
under the impression that they cannot be implemented with the normal syntax
and semantics of an intra-database foreign-key constraint.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Ivar Lazzaro wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following up the latest GB
Hi,
Following up the latest GBP team meeting [0][1]:
As we keep going with our Juno stackforge implementation [2], although the
service is effectively a Neutron extension, we should avoid breaking
Neutron's migration chain by adding our model on top of it (and
subsequently changing Neutron's HEAD
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 Targets
iling List (not for usage questions)"
Date: 09/23/2014 04:33 AM
Subject: 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 wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Request you all t
Thanks for your interest in GBP, responses inline.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Sachi Gupta 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 OpenStack Networking w
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 OpenStack Networking with policy and
connectivity abstractions that enable significantly more simplified and
application-oriented inter
48 matches
Mail list logo
