Great. I'll try to review as soon as possible since these will be big
changes.
On Sep 17, 2015 12:44 PM, "Carl Baldwin" wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> > Yes, the L2 semantics apply to the external network as well (at least
There is no guarantee that two separate external networks will have routing
connectivity to each other. It seems like your (b) statement implies that.
On Sep 19, 2015 3:12 PM, "Neil Jerram" wrote:
> On 17/09/15 19:38, Kevin Benton wrote:
> > router:external only
On 17/09/15 19:38, Kevin Benton wrote:
> router:external only affects the behavior of Neutron routers. It
> allows them to attach to it with an external gateway interface which
> implies NAT and floating IPs.
I presume you're talking about the reference implementation here. OK,
but my concern
Yes, the L2 semantics apply to the external network as well (at least with
ML2).
One example of the special casing is the external_network_bridge option in
the L3 agent. That would cause the agent to plug directly into a bridge so
none of the normal L2 agent wiring would occur. With the L2
Thanks, Kevin. Some further queries, then:
On 17/09/15 15:49, Kevin Benton wrote:
>
> It's not true for all plugins, but an external network should provide
> the same semantics of a normal network.
>
Yes, that makes sense. Clearly the core semantic there is IP. I can
imagine reasonable
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 09:58:29AM EDT, Neil Jerram wrote:
> Specifically I wonder if VM's attached to an external network expect any
> particular L2 characteristics, such as being able to L2 broadcast to
> each other?
I am fairly certain that our definition of a Neutron Network, as a L2
Thanks to the interesting 'default network model' thread, I now know
that Neutron allows booting a VM on an external network. :-) I didn't
realize that before!
So, I'm now wondering what connectivity semantics are expected (or even
specified!) for such VMs, and whether they're the same as - or
It's not true for all plugins, but an external network should provide the
same semantics of a normal network. The only difference is that it allows
router gateway interfaces to be attached to it. We want to get rid of as
much special casing as possible for the external network.
On Sep 17, 2015
Thanks so much for your continuing answers; they are really helping me.
I see your points now about the special casing, and about the semantic
expectations and internal wiring of a Neutron network being just the
same for an external network as for non-external. Hence, the model for
an L3-only
router:external only affects the behavior of Neutron routers. It allows
them to attach to it with an external gateway interface which implies NAT
and floating IPs.
>From an instance's perspective, an external network would be no different
than any other provider network scenario that uses a
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> Yes, the L2 semantics apply to the external network as well (at least with
> ML2).
This is true and should remain so. I think we've come to the
agreement that a neutron Network, external, shared, or not, should be
an L2
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
>>Also I believe that (c) is already true for Neutron external networks -
>> i.e. it doesn't make sense to assign a floating IP to an instance that is
>> directly on an external network. Is that correct?
>
> Well not
12 matches
Mail list logo