[Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG. Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a try. Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to meet and offline discussion. :) On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is my +2 since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and agree with them here as I have in individual discussions. If nothing else I agree with

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

Hey folks, Great discussion! There are number of points to comment on going back through the last few emails. I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's latest below. From a User Committee perspective (and as a member of the Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of co-location,

Re: [Openstack-operators] OpenStack "S" Release Naming Preliminary Results

+1 On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Jonathan Proulx wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 08:32:38PM -0400, Paul Belanger wrote: > > :6. Spandau loses to Solar by 195–88, loses to Springer by 125–118 > > Given this is at #6 and formal vetting is yet to come it's probably > not

[Openstack-operators] fwaas v2

Hello all, I am tryining to use fwaas v2 on centos 7 openstack ocata. After creating firewall rules an policy I am looking for creating firewall group . I am able to create the firewall group, but it does not work when I try to set the ports into it. openstack firewall group set --port

Re: [Openstack-operators] OpenStack "S" Release Naming Preliminary Results

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 08:32:38PM -0400, Paul Belanger wrote: :6. Spandau loses to Solar by 195–88, loses to Springer by 125–118 Given this is at #6 and formal vetting is yet to come it's probably not much of an issue, but "Spandau's" first association for many will be Nazi war criminals via

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack operators][neutron] Neutron Router getting address not inside allocation range on provider network

Thanks, Kevin. I agree that it seems like a bug. I'll go ahead and file. Chris On March 22, 2018 05:10:08 Kevin Benton wrote: I think you might have uncovered an edge-case that should probably be filed as a bug against Neutron. If a router interface is attached using a

[Openstack-operators] usernames in horizon instance action log

Dear all, is there a way to configure horizon to display the username instead of user ID in the instances action log? Right now it displays the: Req Id, Action, Start time, userID, Message Kind regards, Laszlo ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack operators][neutron] Neutron Router getting address not inside allocation range on provider network

I think you might have uncovered an edge-case that should probably be filed as a bug against Neutron. If a router interface is attached using a reference to a subnet, it always tries to use the address in the "gateway_ip" of the subnet: