You could rise an exception if ports are specified for all nics. [1]
I'm not sure that logging of this case is helpful, because only admins can
access to logs.
Probably the better way to warn a user is to do it at client side by nova
cli (i.e. no any modification of nova server is needed).
[1] It
I definitely don't expect any change of the existing port in the case with
two nics. However in the case of single nic a question like 'what is impact
of security-groups parameter' arises.
Also a similar question arises out of '--nic port-id=xxx,v4-fixed-ip=yyy'
combination.
Moreover, if we assume
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Feodor Tersin fter...@cloudscaling.com
wrote:
I definitely don't expect any change of the existing port in the case with
two nics. However in the case of single nic a question like 'what is impact
of security-groups parameter' arises.
Also a similar question
On 9/26/2014 3:19 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400
Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote:
I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction
with Neutron to create ports
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Feodor Tersin fter...@cloudscaling.com
wrote:
nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy
this case is valid, right?
I.e. i want to boot instance with two ports. The first port is specified,
but the second one is created at network mapping stage.
If i
nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy
this case is valid, right?
I.e. i want to boot instance with two ports. The first port is specified,
but the second one is created at network mapping stage.
If i specify a security group as well, it will be used for the second port
(if not - default
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote:
I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction with
Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group assignment
in Neutron as well.
Agree. However what do you think a user expects when he/she
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400
Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote:
I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction
with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400
Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote:
I think the expectation is that if a user is already
On 9/26/2014 3:19 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400
Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote:
I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction
with Neutron to create ports
Hi All,
Creation of server with command 'nova boot --image image
--flavor m1.medium --nic port-id=port-id --security-groups sec_grp name'
fails to attach the security group to the port/instance. The response payload
has the security group added but only default security group
Hi Parikshit,
Looks like a bug. Currently if port is specified its security groups are
not updated, it shpould be fixed.
I've reported https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1373774 to track this.
Thanks for reporting!
Thanks,
Oleg
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Parikshit Manur
I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction with Neutron
to create ports then they should do the security group assignment in Neutron as
well.
The trouble I see with supporting this way of assigning security groups is what
should the correct behavior be if the user passes
13 matches
Mail list logo
