On 05/02/16 16:31, Pavel Bondar wrote: > On 05.02.2016 12:28, Salvatore Orlando wrote: >> >> >> On 5 February 2016 at 04:12, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com >> <mailto:arma...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4 February 2016 at 08:22, John Belamaric >> <<mailto:jbelama...@infoblox.com>jbelama...@infoblox.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Feb 4, 2016, at 11:09 AM, Carl Baldwin <c...@ecbaldwin.net >> <mailto:c...@ecbaldwin.net>> wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Pavel Bondar <pbon...@infoblox.com >> <mailto:pbon...@infoblox.com>> wrote: >> >> I am trying to bring more attention to [1] to make final decision >> on >> >> approach to use. >> >> There are a few point that are not 100% clear for me at this >> point. >> >> >> >> 1) Do we plan to switch all current clouds to pluggable ipam >> >> implementation in Mitaka?
I possibly shouldn't comment at all, as I don't know the history, and wasn't around when the fundamental design decisions here were being made. However, it seems a shame to me that this was done in a way that needs a DB migration at all. (And I would have thought it possible for the default pluggable IPAM driver to use the same DB state as the non-pluggable IPAM backend, given that it is delivering the same semantics.) Without that, I believe it should be a no-brainer to switch unconditionally to the pluggable IPAM backend. Sorry if that's unhelpful... Neil __________________________________________________________________________ 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