Re: [Openstack-operators] [neutron] Routing to tenant networks

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Dan Sneddon wrote: > I can confirm that OpenStack doesn't have Carrier Grade NAT (CGN), but > this RFC simply sets aside a set of addresses which can be used for CGN > (100.64.0.0/10), and lays out some required and best practices for >

Re: [Openstack-operators] [neutron] Routing to tenant networks

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Mike Spreitzer wrote: > I think OpenStack's position should be that it is the operator's choice how > to assign/use addresses. And OpenStack's advice to the operators should be > to follow the RFC (duh!). Of course, I don't speak for

Re: [Openstack-operators] [neutron] Routing to tenant networks

01/14/2016 10:59 AM > Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [neutron] Routing to tenant networks > ... > > I'd discourage the use of 100.64.0.0/10 for any tenant networks. > Quoted the RFC [1]: "This address block will be called the "Shared > Address Space" and will b

Re: [Openstack-operators] [neutron] Routing to tenant networks

On 01/12/2016 09:42 AM, Matt Kassawara wrote: > Sure, you can use 'neutron router-gateway-set --disable-snat > ' to disable NAT... just add routes where necessary. > > Seems like implementation of RFC 6598 would occur outside of neutron... > maybe on the service provider network between clouds?

Re: [Openstack-operators] [neutron] Routing to tenant networks

Sure, you can use 'neutron router-gateway-set --disable-snat ' to disable NAT... just add routes where necessary. Seems like implementation of RFC 6598 would occur outside of neutron... maybe on the service provider network between clouds? Perhaps someone from a service provider can provide more

[Openstack-operators] [neutron] Routing to tenant networks

Is there any condition under which a Neutron router will route packets from a provider network to a tenant network with destination address unmolested? E.g., non-RFC1918 addresses on the tenant network? Does Neutron know anything about RFC6598? Thanks, Mike