Absolutely. We're trying to reduce our public IPv4 usage, so having one per
tenant network (not even including floating IPs) is a drain.

Instead of having: instance -> (gateway IP) virtual router NAT (public IP)
-> (public gateway) router
We want to have: instance -> (gateway IP) virtual router NAT (private IP)
-> (private gateway) router NAT

We have lots of networks, so this would have a huge impact on our IP usage.
Also, in this case, floating IP addresses would still work the same way
that they do now.\

Thanks Assaf

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Assaf Muller <amul...@redhat.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Looking for a bit of advice on how to accomplish something with Neutron.
> Our
> > setup uses OVS+GRE with isolated tenant networks. Currently, we have one
> > large network servicing our Floating IPs as well as our external router
> > interfaces.
> >
> > What we're looking to do is actually have two distinct networks handle
> these
> > tasks. One for FIPs and another for routers.
> >
> > Is this possible?
>
> Every router is allocated an IP address on the same network as the
> floating IPs it serves.
> This is unavoidable at this time. I don't see how you could work around
> this and separate
> the two. Can you expand on what you're trying to accomplish and why?
> There's work going
> on in this area planned for Liberty and it would be interesting to hear
> your use case.
>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
> > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Reply via email to