t;c...@ecbaldwin.net>
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: 05/19/2016 05:34
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][ML2][Routed Networks]
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Hong Hui Xiao <xiaoh...@cn.ib
On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 15:29 -0600, Carl Baldwin wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Hong Hui Xiao wrote:
> > I update [1] to auto delete dhcp port if there is no other ports. But
> > after the dhcp port is deleted, the dhcp service is not usable. I can
>
> I think this
net>
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: 05/19/2016 05:34
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][ML2][Routed Networks]
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Hong Hui Xiao <xiaoh...@cn.ibm.com>
w
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Hong Hui Xiao wrote:
> I update [1] to auto delete dhcp port if there is no other ports. But
> after the dhcp port is deleted, the dhcp service is not usable. I can
I think this is what I expect.
> resume the dhcp service by adding another
eview.openstack.org/#/c/317358
>
> HongHui Xiao(肖宏辉) PMP®
>
>
> From: Carl Baldwin <c...@ecbaldwin.net>
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Date: 05/18/2016 11:50
> Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][M
deleting the existing one?
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/317358
HongHui Xiao(肖宏辉) PMP®
From: Carl Baldwin <c...@ecbaldwin.net>
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: 05/18/2016 11:50
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron]
On May 17, 2016 2:18 PM, "Kevin Benton" wrote:
>
> >I kind of think it makes sense to require evacuating a segment of
its ports before deleting it.
>
> Ah, I left out an important assumption I was making. We also need to auto
delete the DHCP port as the segment is deleted. I was
>I kind of think it makes sense to require evacuating a segment of its ports
before deleting it.
Ah, I left out an important assumption I was making. We also need to auto
delete the DHCP port as the segment is deleted. I was thinking this will be
basically be like the delete_network case where we
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
>>a) Deleting network's last segment will be prevented. Every network should
>> have at least one segment to let the port to bind.
>
> This seems a bit arbitrary to me. If a segment is limited to a small part of
> the
>a) Deleting network's last segment will be prevented. Every network should have
at least one segment to let the port to bind.
This seems a bit arbitrary to me. If a segment is limited to a small part
of the datacenter, it being able to bind for one section of the datacenter
and not the rest is
Hi,
I create this patch [1] to allow multi-segmented routed provider networks
to grow and shrink over time, reviews are welcomed. I found these points
during working on the patch, and I think it is good to bring them out for
discussion.
a) Deleting network's last segment will be prevented.
11 matches
Mail list logo