The MTU values are derived from the config values only.
If the tenant tries to set the MTU directly, that is rejected.

Rob

From: Gary Kotton <gkot...@vmware.com<mailto:gkot...@vmware.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 3:01 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] VLAN transparency support

With regards to the MTU can you please point me to where we validate that the 
MTU defined by the tenant is actually <= the supported MTU on the network. I 
did not see this in the code (maybe I missed something).


From: Ian Wells <ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk<mailto:ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk>>
Reply-To: OpenStack List 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 8:44 PM
To: OpenStack List 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] VLAN transparency support

Per the other discussion on attributes, I believe the change walks in 
historical footsteps and it's a matter of project policy choice.  That aside, 
you raised a couple of other issues on IRC:

- backward compatibility with plugins that haven't adapted their API - this is 
addressed in the spec, which should have been implemented in the patches 
(otherwise I will downvote the patch myself) - behaviour should be as before 
with the additional feature that you can now tell more about what the plugin is 
thinking
- whether they should be core or an extension - this is a more personal 
opinion, but on the grounds that all networks are either trunks or not, and all 
networks have MTUs, I think they do want to be core.  I would like to see 
plugin developers strongly encouraged to consider what they can do on both 
elements, whereas an extension tends to sideline functionality from view so 
that plugin writers don't even know it's there for consideration.

Aside from that, I'd like to emphasise the value of these patches, so hopefully 
we can find a way to get them in in some form in this cycle.  I admit I'm 
interested in them because they make it easier to do NFV.  But they also help 
normal cloud users and operators, who otherwise have to do some really strange 
things [1].  I think it's maybe a little unfair to post reversion patches 
before discussion, particularly when the patch works, passes tests and 
implements an approved spec correctly.
--
Ian.
[1] 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138958<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__bugzilla.redhat.com_show-5Fbug.cgi-3Fid-3D1138958&d=AwMFaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=VlZxHpZBmzzkWT5jqz9JYBk8YTeq9N3-diTlNj4GyNc&m=NzYY0bOpToH9ZNwzqI_SpQHiPFRXD_nfb1bM3qAw7Cs&s=FlF57GYJqeWgx5ivxnK5kfWlyTIc1ZFbdlXoi2cfdhw&e=>
 (admittedly first link I found, but there's no shortage of them)

On 19 March 2015 at 05:32, Gary Kotton 
<gkot...@vmware.com<mailto:gkot...@vmware.com>> wrote:
Hi,
This patch has the same addition too - 
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154921/. We should also revert that one.
Thanks
Gary

From: Gary Kotton <gkot...@vmware.com<mailto:gkot...@vmware.com>>
Reply-To: OpenStack List 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 1:14 PM
To: OpenStack List 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] VLAN transparency support

Hi,
It appears that https://review.openstack.org/#/c/158420/ update the base 
attributes for the networks. Is there any reason why this was not added as a 
separate extension like all others.
I do not think that this is the correct way to go and we should do this as all 
other extensions have been maintained. I have posted a revert 
(https://review.openstack.org/#/c/165776/) – please feel free to knack if it is 
invalid.
Thanks
Gary

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: 
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to