On 9 May 2016 9:48 p.m., Mike Spreitzer <mspre...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > "Hayes, Graham" <graham.ha...@hpe.com> wrote on
"Hayes, Graham" <graham.ha...@hpe.com> wrote on 05/09/2016 04:08:07 PM: > ... > On 09/05/2016 20:55, Mike Spreitzer wrote: > ... > > Oh, right, the network gets to specify the rest of the FQDN. In my case > > I am interested in Neutron Ports on tenant networks. So with a per-port > > "hostname" (first label) and per-network "domain" (rest of the labels), > > I would get separation between tenants --- at least in the sense that > > there is no overlap in FQDNs. Will this work for private tenant networks? > > Yes, you could publish the records to Designate for this, or using the > internal dns resolution side of the integration. > > Pushing the records to designate would make them viewable globally > (anywhere the DNS servers are accessible) > > > > The other part of separation is that I do not want one tenant to even be > > able to look up FQDNs that belong to another tenant. Is this > > prohibition possible today? If not, is anyone else interested in it? > > Do you want to limit this to inside the tenant private network? if so, > just allowing users to set the dns_domain on a network, and not enabling > the external DNS plugin will work fine. Ah, that may be what I want. BTW, I am not planning to use Nova. I am planning to use Swarm and Kubernetes to create containers attached to Neutron private tenant networks. What DNS server would I configure those containers to use? Thanks, Mike __________________________________________________________________________ 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