On 3/22/15, 8:05 PM, Ian Wells
ijw.ubu...@cack.org.ukmailto:ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk wrote:
Seems to me that an address pool corresponds to a network area that you can
route across (because routing only works over a network with unique addresses
and that's what an address pool does for you).
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 05:05:17PM -0700, Ian Wells wrote:
On 22 March 2015 at 07:48, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/20/2015 05:16 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
To clarify a bit, we obviously divide lots of things by tenant (quotas,
network listing, etc). The difference is that we
I think that moving the discussion in whether a pool represents a tenant's
routable address space, or whether we need a new (another?!) API entity do
deal with it probably does not really fall within the scope of this thread.
I am pretty sure Carl will soon push a specification for address scope
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
I think the goal of subnet pools is to use these environments as units of
isolations and ensure no overlapping CIDRs there. However, since there is
no way to identify such environments at the API layers, API clients
On 03/20/2015 05:16 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
To clarify a bit, we obviously divide lots of things by tenant (quotas,
network listing, etc). The difference is that we have nothing right now
that has to be unique within a tenant. Are there objects that are
uniquely scoped to a tenant in
On 22 March 2015 at 07:48, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/20/2015 05:16 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
To clarify a bit, we obviously divide lots of things by tenant (quotas,
network listing, etc). The difference is that we have nothing right now
that has to be unique within a tenant.
On 03/11/2015 06:48 PM, John Belamaric wrote:
This has been settled and we're not moving forward with it for Kilo. I
agree tenants are an administrative concept, not a networking one so
using them for uniqueness doesn't really make sense.
In Liberty we are proposing a new grouping mechanism, as
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a question purely out of curiousity. Why is Neutron averse to the
concept of using tenants as natural ways of dividing up the cloud -- which
at its core means multi-tenant, on-demand computing and networking?
From
On 03/20/2015 03:37 PM, Carl Baldwin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a question purely out of curiousity. Why is Neutron averse to the
concept of using tenants as natural ways of dividing up the cloud -- which
at its core means multi-tenant,
On 2015-03-20 13:37:49 -0600 (-0600), Carl Baldwin wrote:
From what I've heard others say both in this thread and privately to
me, there are already a lot of cases where a tenant will use the same
address range to stamp out identical topologies. It occurred to me
that we might even being
To clarify a bit, we obviously divide lots of things by tenant (quotas,
network listing, etc). The difference is that we have nothing right now
that has to be unique within a tenant. Are there objects that are uniquely
scoped to a tenant in Nova/Glance/etc?
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Jay
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Ryan Moats rmo...@us.ibm.com wrote:
While I'd personally like to see this be restricted (Carl's position), I
know
of at least one existence proof where management applications are doing
precisely what Gabriel is suggesting - reusing the same address range to
Here is a compromise option. The pluggable IPAM will be optionally enabled
in Kilo. We could introduce the restriction, but only when pluggable IPAM
is enabled. Support for having a tenant with overlapping IP space, along
with pluggable IPAM would wait until Liberty, when we can fully implement
On 3/12/15, 12:46 AM, Carl Baldwin c...@ecbaldwin.net wrote:
When talking with external IPAM to get a subnet, Neutron will pass
both the cidr as the primary identifier and the subnet_id as an
alternate identifier. External systems that do not allow overlap can
Recall that IPAM driver
On 3/12/15, 2:33 AM, Carl Baldwin c...@ecbaldwin.net wrote:
John,
I think our proposals fit together nicely. This thread is about
allowing overlap within a pool. I think it is fine for an external
IPAM driver to disallow such overlap for now. However, the reference
implementation must
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:54 PM, John Belamaric jbelama...@infoblox.com wrote:
I was proposing that the reference driver not support it either, and we
only handle that use case via the non-pluggable implementation in Kilo,
waiting until Liberty to handle it in the pluggable implementation.
John,
I think our proposals fit together nicely. This thread is about
allowing overlap within a pool. I think it is fine for an external
IPAM driver to disallow such overlap for now. However, the reference
implementation must support it for backward compatibility and so my
proposal will
My concern is that we are introducing new objects in Neutron that are
scoped to a tenant and we don't have anything else like that right now. For
example, I can create 100 3-tier topologies (router + 3 subnets/networks)
with duplicated names, CIDRs, etc between all of them and it doesn't matter
if
@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPAM] Uniqueness of subnets within a
tenant
My concern is that we are introducing new objects in Neutron that are scoped to
a tenant and we don't have anything else like that right now. For example, I
can create 100 3-tier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/2015 06:34 PM, Gabriel Bezerra wrote:
Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
Neutron currently does not enforce the uniqueness, or
non-overlap, of subnet cidrs within the address scope for a
single tenant. For example, if a tenant
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Gabriel Bezerra gabri...@lsd.ufcg.edu.br
wrote:
Em 10.03.2015 14:34, Gabriel Bezerra escreveu:
Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
Neutron currently does not enforce the uniqueness, or non-overlap, of
subnet cidrs within the address scope for a
Gabriel Bezerra gabri...@lsd.ufcg.edu.br wrote on 03/10/2015 12:34:30 PM:
Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
Neutron currently does not enforce the uniqueness, or non-overlap, of
subnet cidrs within the address scope for a single tenant. For
example, if a tenant chooses to use
Em 10.03.2015 14:34, Gabriel Bezerra escreveu:
Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
Neutron currently does not enforce the uniqueness, or non-overlap, of
subnet cidrs within the address scope for a single tenant. For
example, if a tenant chooses to use 10.0.0.0/24 on more than one
Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
Neutron currently does not enforce the uniqueness, or non-overlap, of
subnet cidrs within the address scope for a single tenant. For
example, if a tenant chooses to use 10.0.0.0/24 on more than one
subnet, he or she is free to do so. Problems will
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Gabriel Bezerra
gabri...@lsd.ufcg.edu.br wrote:
Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
I'd vote for allowing against such restriction, but throwing an error in
case of creating a router between the subnets.
I can imagine a tenant running multiple
25 matches
Mail list logo
