> On Oct. 22, 2015, 12:45 a.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
> > Can you also sync this with the V1 API?  (If so, I'll remove that section 
> > from this: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39502 ).

Yes, I will update the v1 proto file as well.  Thanks for the reminder.


- Connor


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39531/#review103497
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Oct. 22, 2015, 5:08 p.m., Connor Doyle wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/39531/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 22, 2015, 5:08 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Kapil Arya.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3788
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3788
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> In Mesos 0.25.0, a new message called NetworkInfo was introduced.  This 
> message allows framework authors to communicate with network isolation 
> modules via a first-class message type to request IP addresses and network 
> group isolation policies.
> 
> Unfortunately, the structure is somewhat confusing to both framework authors 
> and module implementors.
> 
> 1) It's unclear how IP addresses map to virtual interfaces inside the 
> container.
> 2) It's difficult for application developers to understand the final policy 
> when multiple IP addresses can be assigned with differing isolation policies.
> 
> NOTE: the slave should also be updated in order to set the new IpAddress 
> message in ContainerStatus in case network isolation modules are not 
> installed.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/mesos.proto 4a16be1 
>   src/common/http.hpp 0cc98a8 
>   src/common/http.cpp 99b843a 
>   src/tests/common/http_tests.cpp 8a01ffc 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39531/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make && make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Connor Doyle
> 
>

Reply via email to