Nice work, Brian!
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Brian Haley wrote:
> On 01/22/2015 02:35 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
>> Right, there are two bugs here. One is in whatever went wrong with
>> defer_apply
>> and one is with this exception handling code. I would allow the fix to go in
>> for
>> the
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Brian Haley wrote:
> On 01/22/2015 02:35 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
>> Right, there are two bugs here. One is in whatever went wrong with
>> defer_apply
>> and one is with this exception handling code. I would allow the fix to go in
>> for
>> the exception handling
On 01/22/2015 02:35 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> Right, there are two bugs here. One is in whatever went wrong with defer_apply
> and one is with this exception handling code. I would allow the fix to go in
> for
> the exception handling and then file another bug for the actual underlying
> defer_app
Right, there are two bugs here. One is in whatever went wrong with
defer_apply and one is with this exception handling code. I would allow the
fix to go in for the exception handling and then file another bug for the
actual underlying defer_apply bug.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Brian Haley
On 01/22/2015 01:06 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> There was a bug for this already.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1413111
Thanks Kevin. I added more info to it, but don't think the patch proposed there
is correct. Something in the iptables manager defer_apply() code isn't quite
right.
-Brian
There was a bug for this already.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1413111
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Brian Haley wrote:
> On 01/22/2015 10:17 AM, Carl Baldwin wrote:
> > I think this warrants a bug report. Could you file one with what you
> > know so far?
>
> Carl,
>
> Seems as though a r
On 01/22/2015 10:17 AM, Carl Baldwin wrote:
> I think this warrants a bug report. Could you file one with what you
> know so far?
Carl,
Seems as though a recent change introduced a bug. This is on a devstack
I just created today, at l3/vpn-agent startup:
2015-01-22 11:55:07.961 4203 TRACE neut
I think this warrants a bug report. Could you file one with what you
know so far?
Carl
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Brian Haley wrote:
> On 01/21/2015 02:29 PM, Xavier León wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Brian Haley wrote:
>>> On 01/20/2015 09:20 AM, Xavier León wrote:
Hi
On 01/21/2015 02:29 PM, Xavier León wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Brian Haley wrote:
>> On 01/20/2015 09:20 AM, Xavier León wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> we've been doing some tests with openstack kilo and found
>>> out a problem: iptables routes are not being injected to the
>>> router
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Brian Haley wrote:
> On 01/20/2015 09:20 AM, Xavier León wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> we've been doing some tests with openstack kilo and found
>> out a problem: iptables routes are not being injected to the
>> router namespace.
>>
>> Scenario:
>> - a private network N
On 01/20/2015 09:20 AM, Xavier León wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> we've been doing some tests with openstack kilo and found
> out a problem: iptables routes are not being injected to the
> router namespace.
>
> Scenario:
> - a private network NOT connected to the outside world.
> - a router with only one
Hi all,
we've been doing some tests with openstack kilo and found
out a problem: iptables routes are not being injected to the
router namespace.
Scenario:
- a private network NOT connected to the outside world.
- a router with only one interface connected to the private network.
- a vm instance c
12 matches
Mail list logo