Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack support for Amazon Concepts - was Re: cloud-init IPv6 support

Kevin * * *From:* Sean M. Collins *Sent:* Saturday, September 05, 2015 3:19:48 PM *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) *Cc:* Fox, Kevin M; PAUL CARVER *Subject:* OpenStack support for Amazon Concepts - was Re: [openstack-dev] cloud-init IPv6 support On Fri, Sep 04, 2015

Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack support for Amazon Concepts - was Re: cloud-init IPv6 support

PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Cc: Fox, Kevin M; PAUL CARVER Subject: OpenStack support for Amazon Concepts - was Re: [openstack-dev] cloud-init IPv6 support On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:20:23PM EDT, Kevin Benton wrote: > Right, it depends on your perspect

Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack support for Amazon Concepts - was Re: cloud-init IPv6 support

PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack support for Amazon Concepts - was Re: cloud-init IPv6 support > On Sep 6, 2015, at 09:43, Monty Taylor <mord...@inaugust.com> wrote: > >> On 09/05/2015 06:19 PM, Sea

Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack support for Amazon Concepts - was Re: cloud-init IPv6 support

on a second ip. Thanks, Kevin From: Sean M. Collins Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2015 7:34:54 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack support for Amazon Concepts - was Re: cloud-init IPv6 support On Sun

Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack support for Amazon Concepts - was Re: cloud-init IPv6 support

The contract we have is to maintain compatibility. As long as a client written for the AWS API continues to work, I don't think we are violating anything. Offering one API isn't a promise not to offer an alternative way to access the same information. On Sep 6, 2015 7:37 PM, "Sean M. Collins"

Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack support for Amazon Concepts - was Re: cloud-init IPv6 support

On 7 September 2015 at 03:34, Sean M. Collins wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 04:25:43PM EDT, Kevin Benton wrote: >> So it's been pointed out that http://169.254.169.254/openstack is completed >> OpenStack invented. I don't quite understand how that's not violating the >>

Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack support for Amazon Concepts - was Re: cloud-init IPv6 support

On 7 September 2015 at 01:02, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: >> On Sep 6, 2015, at 09:43, Monty Taylor wrote: >>> On 09/05/2015 06:19 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote: On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:20:23PM EDT, Kevin Benton wrote: Right, it depends on your

Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack support for Amazon Concepts - was Re: cloud-init IPv6 support

On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 04:25:43PM EDT, Kevin Benton wrote: > So it's been pointed out that http://169.254.169.254/openstack is completed > OpenStack invented. I don't quite understand how that's not violating the > contract you said we have with end users about EC2 compatibility under the >

Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack support for Amazon Concepts - was Re: cloud-init IPv6 support

> On Sep 6, 2015, at 09:43, Monty Taylor wrote: > >> On 09/05/2015 06:19 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:20:23PM EDT, Kevin Benton wrote: >>> Right, it depends on your perspective of who 'owns' the API. Is it >>> cloud-init or EC2? >>> >>> At

Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack support for Amazon Concepts - was Re: cloud-init IPv6 support

So it's been pointed out that http://169.254.169.254/openstack is completed OpenStack invented. I don't quite understand how that's not violating the contract you said we have with end users about EC2 compatibility under the restriction of 'no new stuff'. If we added an IPv6 endpoint that the

Re: [openstack-dev] OpenStack support for Amazon Concepts - was Re: cloud-init IPv6 support

On 09/05/2015 06:19 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote: On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:20:23PM EDT, Kevin Benton wrote: Right, it depends on your perspective of who 'owns' the API. Is it cloud-init or EC2? At this point I would argue that cloud-init is in control because it would be a large undertaking to