Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][IPv6] Neighbor Discovery for HA

2014-08-27 Thread Veiga, Anthony
Hi Xuhan, What I saw is that GARP is sent to the gateway port and also to the router ports, from a neutron router. I’m not sure why it’s sent to the router ports (internal network). My understanding for arping to the gateway port is that it is needed for proper NAT operation. Since we are not

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][IPv6] Neighbor Discovery for HA

2014-08-28 Thread Veiga, Anthony
on this since you can only have one gateway per subnet. Thoughts? Xu Han On 08/27/2014 10:01 PM, Veiga, Anthony wrote: Hi Xuhan, What I saw is that GARP is sent to the gateway port and also

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][QoS] Applying QoS as Quota

2014-09-10 Thread Veiga, Anthony
Using the quota system would be a nice option to have. Can you clarify what you mean by cumulative bandwidth for the tenant? It would be possible to rate limit at the tenant router, but having a cumulative limit enforced inside of a tenant would be difficult. On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:03 AM,

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Third party Neutron plugin testing meeting

2013-12-10 Thread Veiga, Anthony
-Original Message- From: Kyle Mestery Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:48 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Blueprint Bind dnsmasq in qrouter- namespace

2013-12-19 Thread Veiga, Anthony
Keep in mind that this approach is a direct departure from the IPv4 world. Note that I'm not wholly against that, however there's something to keep in mind. Any kind of stack-agnostic interactions in Neutron will have to become stack aware or have a translator to tell if they need to interact

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Allow multiple subnets on gateway port for router

2014-01-09 Thread Veiga, Anthony
-- (rebroadcast to dev community from prior unicast discussion) -- Hi Nir Sorry if the description is misleading. Didn't want a large title, and hoped that the description would provide those additional details to clarify the real goal of what's included and what's not included. #1. Yes,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-23 Thread Veiga, Anthony
An openstack deployment with an external DHCP server is definetely a possible scenario; I don't think it can be implemented out-of-the-box with the components provided by the core openstack services, but it should be doable and a possibly even a requirement for deployments which integrate

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-27 Thread Veiga, Anthony
I vote address them (ipv6_). There's no guarantee of forward compatibility with a new protocol and this way it can't be confused with a (non-existant) selection method for IPv4, either. Also, future updates of other protocols would require a new attribute and break the API less. -Anthony OK -

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Validating Addressing and Routing configuration

2014-02-10 Thread Veiga, Anthony
During last week's IRC meeting, we ran into a question about validating the configuration options for ipv6_address_mode[1] and ipv6_ra_mode[1] for IPv6 networks. This brought up a few issues, but after mulling it over for a while I think it breaks down into 2 distinct questions. Question 1)

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Idea: Floating IPv6 - Without any kind of NAT

2014-02-11 Thread Veiga, Anthony
Hello Stackers! It is very nice to watch the OpenStack evolution in IPv6! Great job guys!! Thanks! I have another idea: Floating IP for IPv6, or just Floating IPv6 With IPv4, as we know, OpenStack have a feature called Floating IP, which is basically a 1-to-1 NAT rule (within tenant's

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Ensure that configured gateway is on subnet by default

2014-02-20 Thread Veiga, Anthony
This would break IPv6. The gateway address, according to RFC 4861[1] Section 4.2 regarding Router Advertisements: Source Address MUST be the link-local address assigned to the interface from which this message is sent. This means that if you configure a subnet with a Globally Unique Address

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Mini-summit Interest?

2014-03-06 Thread Veiga, Anthony
On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 15:32 +, Jorge Miramontes wrote: I'd like to gauge everyone's interest in a possible mini-summit for Neturon LBaaS. If enough people are interested I'd be happy to try and set something up. The Designate team just had a productive mini-summit in Austin, TX and it was

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] IPv6 sub-team?

2013-11-12 Thread Veiga, Anthony
As an IPv6 engineer interesting in helping Neutron get where it could be, I'd like to join in on this. I also like the Thursday 21:00 UTC slot. -Anthony -Original Message- From: Shixiong Shang Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Provisioning Support

2013-12-06 Thread Veiga, Anthony
As part of the discussion around managing IPv6-addressed hosts both within neutron itself and other systems that require address information, Sean Collins and I had had a discussion about the types of addresses that could be supported. Since IPv6 has many modes of provisioning, we will need to

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Specs repository update and the way forward

2014-06-12 Thread Veiga, Anthony
+1 to this. It would be great to read the compiled spec and have it be searchable/filtered. -Anthony Thank you for the update, Kyle. I was sceptical about this move at first but hopefully I was wrong. The specs repository indeed eases a lot of the work from a submitter and reviewer point of

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Security Group logging

2014-04-11 Thread Veiga, Anthony
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 00:02 +0100, Salvatore Orlando wrote: Auditing has been discussed for the firewall extension. However, it is reasonable to expect some form of auditing for security group rules as well. To the best of my knowledge there has never been an explicit decision to not

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][Nova][Designate][L3][IPv6] Discussion about Cross-Project Integration of DNS at Summit

2014-05-06 Thread Veiga, Anthony
Hi, The only issue I would see with the pod is that not all of us are ATCs, so we may or may not have access to that area (I am open to correction on that point - in fact I hope someone does ;) ) I’ll second this. I have an interest in attending and assisting here, but I don’t have ATC

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Privacy extension

2014-05-16 Thread Veiga, Anthony
I’ll take this one a step further. I think one of the methods for getting (non-NAT) floating IPs in IPv6 would be to push a new, extra address to the same port. Either by crafting an extra, unicast RA to the specific VM or providing multiple IA_NA fields in the DHCPv6 transaction. This would

Re: [openstack-dev] [Baremetal][Neutron] SDN Solution for Openstack Baremetal Driver

2014-05-16 Thread Veiga, Anthony
This is a discussion that warrants a broader audience, as others are likely to have a very similar need. It would be good to get something like this documented, and perhaps bolted on to the operators’ guide or somewhere similarly appropriate. -Anthony Hi Tim, NTT-docomo and VTJ developed

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] IPv6 bug fixes that would be nice to have in Juno

2014-10-03 Thread Veiga, Anthony
On 10/3/14, 14:58 , Henry Gessau wrote: There are some fixes for IPv6 bugs that unfortunately missed the RC1 cut. These bugs are quite important for IPv6 users and therefore I would like to lobby for getting them into a possible RC2 of Neutron Juno. These are low-risk fixes that

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Lightning talks during the Design Summit!

2014-10-31 Thread Veiga, Anthony
I’ll +1 this. I think this is going to be relevant to quite a few things, including NFV and routing (if you want to establish an L2 neighbor for ISIS…). This seems like a useful feature. -Anthony Maruti's talk is, in fact, so interesting that we should probably get together and talk about

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases

2015-02-06 Thread Veiga, Anthony
On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:17 , Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2015-02-06 12:11:40 +0100 (+0100), Marc Koderer wrote: [...] Therefore I uploaded one of them (Session Border Controller) to the Gerrit system into the sandbox repo: [...]

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [QoS] QoS weekly meeting

2015-04-15 Thread Veiga, Anthony
Miguel, As a telco operator, who is active in the WG, I am absolutely an interested party for QoS. I’d be willing to hop between the two of them if absolutely necessary (it’s IRC, after all) but would prefer they not overlap if possible. Thanks! -Anthony On Apr 15, 2015, at 6:39 , Miguel

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [QoS] QoS weekly meeting

2015-04-15 Thread Veiga, Anthony
On Apr 15, 2015, at 10:00 , Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo wrote: Ok, 1) #openstack-meeting-2 doesn’t exist (-alt is it) 2) and not only that we’re colliding the TWG meeting, but all the meeting rooms starting at UTC 14:30 are busy. While not preferable, I don’t mind

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [QoS] QoS weekly meeting

2015-04-07 Thread Veiga, Anthony
On Apr 6, 2015, at 11:56 , Miguel Ángel Ajo wrote: I’d like to co-organized a QoS weekly meeting with Sean M. Collins, In the last few years, the interest for QoS support has increased, Sean has been leading this effort [1] and we believe we

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [QoS] QoS weekly meeting

2015-04-07 Thread Veiga, Anthony
in Salvatore’s suggestion for starting with how to define things in the API first. Best regards, Miguel Ángel On 7/4/2015, at 15:07, Veiga, Anthony wrote: On Apr 6, 2015, at 11:56 , Miguel Ángel Ajo majop...@redhat.commailto:majop

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [QoS] QoS weekly meeting

2015-04-07 Thread Veiga, Anthony
On Apr 7, 2015, at 11:05 , Veiga, Anthony wrote: On Apr 7, 2015, at 10:50 , Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo wrote: Hi Anthony, nice to hear about it! :) Is the implementation