> On 21 Jun 2016, at 08:47, Armando M. wrote:
>
>
>
> On 20 June 2016 at 18:41, Carl Baldwin wrote:
> Somehow, this thread hid from me for a couple of weeks. I just
> reviewed something relevant to this here [1]. It proposes adding
> tenant id to
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Armando M. wrote:
> It seems it may potentially limit the ability to describe ownership.
> Virtually all Neutron models have it. Not sure I see the value in its
> absence.
I'm just saying that I don't see value in its presence. The value
that
On 20 June 2016 at 18:41, Carl Baldwin wrote:
> Somehow, this thread hid from me for a couple of weeks. I just
> reviewed something relevant to this here [1]. It proposes adding
> tenant id to segment. But, it also enforces that tenant id is the
> same as that of the
Somehow, this thread hid from me for a couple of weeks. I just
reviewed something relevant to this here [1]. It proposes adding
tenant id to segment. But, it also enforces that tenant id is the
same as that of the network owning the segment. So, I say why store
it at all?
I would argue that
Carl Baldwin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Henry Gessau wrote:
>> Darek Smigiel wrote:
>>> strange, that owner is not able to just get rid of *his* network and
>>> subnets.
>>
>> But not all the subnets are his, and
On 3 June 2016 at 13:31, Carl Baldwin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Henry Gessau wrote:
> > Darek Smigiel wrote:
> >> strange, that owner is not able to just get rid of *his* network and
> subnets.
> >
> > But not all
To me, it seems more appropriate to delete all the subnets no matter
who they're owned by if the owner of the network decided they wanted to
delete it. If there is a subnet associated with their network that
they do not see, then the delete network call would have to fail.
That's going to be
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Henry Gessau wrote:
> Darek Smigiel wrote:
>> strange, that owner is not able to just get rid of *his* network and subnets.
>
> But not all the subnets are his, and consequently the network is partially not
> his.
To
Darek Smigiel wrote:
> strange, that owner is not able to just get rid of *his* network and subnets.
But not all the subnets are his, and consequently the network is partially not
his.
Why did the admin create a subnet on the user's network in [1]?
IMO the admin
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Darek Smigiel
wrote:
> Hello,
> Doing reviews I noticed, that Liu Yong submitted a bug [1] where we have a
> problem with removing subnets.
This makes me wonder what the use case that gets in to this situation.
> In short: if tenant
Hello,
Doing reviews I noticed, that Liu Yong submitted a bug [1] where we have a
problem with removing subnets.
In short: if tenant wants to delete network with subnets, where at least one of
subnets is created by admin, he’s not able to do this.
Liu also prepared bugfix for it [2], but now
11 matches
Mail list logo