Thanks for the insight.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Miguel Ángel Ajo majop...@redhat.com
wrote:
Correct, that’s the problem, what Kevin said should be the ideal case, but
distros have
proven to fail satisfying this kind of requirements earlier.
So at least a warning to the user may be
Now that I re-read the patch.
Shouldn't the version checking need to be converted into a sanity check?
Miguel Ángel Ajo
On Thursday, 8 de January de 2015 at 12:51, Kevin Benton wrote:
Thanks for the insight.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Miguel Ángel Ajo majop...@redhat.com
I agree, that is one thing we should not check in runtime.
In ideal world, it wouldn't even check version number, but capabilities.
I's not clear though whether we can be any smarter than that (we would
need to run dnsmasq and real dhcp clients to check actual capabilities).
/Ihar
On
The problem is probably due to the fact that some operators may run
neutron from git and manage their dependencies in some other way; or
distributions may suck sometimes, so packagers may miss the release note
and fail to upgrade dnsmasq; or distributions may have their specific
concerns on
Correct, that’s the problem, what Kevin said should be the ideal case, but
distros have
proven to fail satisfying this kind of requirements earlier.
So at least a warning to the user may be good to have IMHO.
Miguel Ángel Ajo
On Thursday, 8 de January de 2015 at 12:36, Ihar Hrachyshka
I think it should be possible to have a sanity check like the following:
2.63 - sorry, that's not going to work
=2.63, 2.67 - it kind of works but ipv6 is going to be messed up
2.67 - we're all right
The runtime check on the dhcp agent is a startup check. Personally I think
agents should run
On 01/07/2015 03:21 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
Hi all,
I've found out that dnsmasq 2.67 does not work properly for IPv6
clients when it comes to MAC address matching (it fails to match, and
so clients get 'no addresses available' response). I've requested
version bump to 2.67 in:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
If the new requirement is expressed in the neutron packages for the distro,
wouldn't it be transparent to the operators?
I think the difficulty first lies with the distros. If the required
new version isn't in an older
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 11:53:24AM EST, Carl Baldwin wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
If the new requirement is expressed in the neutron packages for the distro,
wouldn't it be transparent to the operators?
I think the difficulty first lies with
If the new requirement is expressed in the neutron packages for the distro,
wouldn't it be transparent to the operators?
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com
wrote:
Hi all,
I've found out
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've found out that dnsmasq 2.67 does not work properly for IPv6 clients
when it comes to MAC address matching (it fails to match, and so clients
get 'no addresses available' response). I've requested version
Hi all,
I've found out that dnsmasq 2.67 does not work properly for IPv6
clients when it comes to MAC address matching (it fails to match, and so
clients get 'no addresses available' response). I've requested version
bump to 2.67 in: https://review.openstack.org/145482
Now, since we've
12 matches
Mail list logo
