On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Clark Boylan wrote:
> I got curious and this is an odd situation. I can't find where 212669
> has a patchset with a parent of the commit for 192032,37 (b7151e4). Git
> represents the tree as a DAG with each child commit pointing at its
>
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Michał Dulko wrote:
> n goes to next occurrence and N (shift+n) to a previous one. These are
> same keybindings as in Vim. Actually a lot of Vim-like movements are
> functional in new Gerrit and I really like that fact.
Thanks. Looking
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Michał Dulko wrote:
> n goes to next occurrence and N (shift+n) to a previous one. These are
> same keybindings as in Vim. Actually a lot of Vim-like movements are
> functional in new Gerrit and I really like that fact.
I'll admit that I
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Zaro <zaro0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Carl Baldwin <c...@ecbaldwin.net> wrote:
>> I noticed another thing. I'm working with a chain of three patches.
>> I just updated the patch in the middle [1]
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Elizabeth K. Joseph <l...@princessleia.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Carl Baldwin <c...@ecbaldwin.net> wrote:
>> I do see that a lot of vim movement does work. I was hoping that
>> holding down a movement command like
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Zaro wrote:
> Hit '?' and it says '/' is find, give that a try.
'/' isn't really much better. It seems to highlight all of the
occurrences but I can't find a way to navigate to the next/previous
occurence with the keyboard. I see that the
gainst gerrit. What should
we do? Should we individually go file bugs against gerrit? Or,
should we funnel it through someone working on gerrit in openstack?
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/192032/37
[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/212669/4
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Carl Baldwin
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Vladimir Eremin wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> As far as I understand Address Scopes, end user’s algorithm will be next:
> 1. Administrator creates an address scope and associate an IPv6 subnet pool
> with it.
> 2. Administrator creates Public
I noticed a couple of things today while reviewing a largish page [1].
First, when I search for something using the browser's builtin search
(Chrome, Mac OSX Yosemite), it doesn't seem to find occurrences that
are not in the visible portion of the page. For example, when I
search for DNSDOMAIN, I
I also really miss being able to pull up the list of files in diff
view with the 'f' key. Any equivalent?
Carl
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Carl Baldwin <c...@ecbaldwin.net> wrote:
> I noticed a couple of things today while reviewing a largish page [1].
> First, when I search f
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> I believe that we should always unconditionally update filters with new
> versions when doing upgrades. Filters should not actually be considered
> configuration files in the first place since they are tightly coupled
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> I will update on Neutron side of things since it seems I have some knowledge
> from the fields.
>
> So first, on resources: we have Sachi and lifeless from infra side + Ihar
> and pc_m looking into expanding
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Vladimir Eremin wrote:
> Hi
>
> For now, when end user is creating IPv6-enabled tenant network and attaching
> it to the virtual router, there is only way to set up external infrastructure
> to put traffic back to the router is using DHCPv6
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Vladimir Eremin wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> I’ll fil RFE for sure, thank you for the link to the process )
>
> So actually, we should announce all SUBNETS we’ve attached to router.
> Otherwise is will not work, because external network router will
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
[...]
> Yes, it's progressing nicely. DevStack-based jobs are already
> covered this way for master and stable/liberty, and Neutron is
> piloting the same solution for its other non-DevStack-based jobs. If
Is someone from
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Mike Bayer wrote:
>> Instead of just breaking the world, and burning 10s to 100 engineer
>> hours in redo tests and investigating and addressing the break after the
>> fact.
We shouldn't let this happen in the first place. I think this is our
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Rossella Sblendido
wrote:
> On 11/25/2015 11:05 PM, Assaf Muller wrote:
>> We could then consider running the script automatically on a daily
>> basis and publishing the
>> resulting URL in a nice bookmarkable place.
>
> An update on this.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Henry Gessau wrote:
> 1. RFE: "I want X"
> 2. Spec: "I plan to implement X like this"
> 3. devref: "How X is implemented and how to extend it"
> 4. OS docs: "API and guide for using X"
>
> Once X is implemented I don't want to have to go to 1 or
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
> One concern I have is ensuring we rotate people, because it does take some
> time, and if the same handful of rotate, they will burn out. So I actively
> encourage more people to volunteer, you don't even have to be a
I was going to bring this up in the meeting this morning but IRC
troubles prevented it.
After chatting with Armando, I'd like to suggest a few enhancements to
how we're tackling DVR during this cycle. I'm hoping that these
changes help us to get things done faster and more efficiently. Let
me
++
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Assaf Muller wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Rossella Sblendido
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/20/2015 03:54 AM, Armando M. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 November 2015 at 18:26, Assaf Muller >>
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Rossella Sblendido wrote:
>> I looked for the address scopes blueprint [1] which is targeted for
>> Mitaka-1 [2] and there are 6 (or 5, one is in the gate) patches on the
>> bp/address-scopes topic [3]. It isn't obvious to me yet
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Rossella Sblendido wrote:
> To cross-reference we can use the bug ID or the blueprint name.
>
> I created a script that queries launchpad to get:
> 1) Bug number of the bugs tagged with approved-rfe
> 2) Bug number of the critical/high bugs
>
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> On 20 November 2015 at 14:07, Kyle Mestery wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Neutrites,
>>
>> Neutrinos?
>
> I am still experimenting to see what
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Shraddha Pandhe
wrote:
> Thats great. L3 layer network model is definitely one of our most important
> requirements. All our go-forward deployments are going to be L3. So this is
> a big deal for us.
I think we're on a good path to
++
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> Hi Neutrites,
>
> We are nearly two weeks away from the end of Mitaka 1.
>
> I am writing this email to invite you to be mindful to what you review,
> especially in the next couple of weeks. Whenever you have the time to
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> as per [1] I imply that all projects under stable-maint-core team
> supervision must abide the stable policy [2] which limits the types of
> backports for N-2 branches (now it’s stable/kilo) to "Only
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Shraddha Pandhe wrote:
>
> We have a similar requirement where we want to pick a network thats
> accessible in the rack that VM belongs to. We have L3 Top-of-rack, so the
> network is confined to the rack. Right now, we are achieving
I've been using Iceland's TZ for this. Seems to work well and handle
the TZ changes nicely.
Carl
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Sean M. Collins wrote:
> Learn from my mistake, check your calendar for the timezone if you've
> created an event for the weekly meetings. Google
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> - Releases page on wiki [2] calls the branch ‘Security-supported’ (and it’s
> not clear what it implies)
I saw this same thing yesterday when it was pointed out in the DVR IRC
meeting [1]. I have a hard time believing
Edgar,
It is great working with you. You've done so much.
Carl
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Edgar Magana wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I have been part of this community from the very beginning when in Santa
> Clara, CA back in 2011 a bunch of we crazy people
Thanks, Brian. I'm planning to be there.
Carl
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Brian Haley wrote:
> A few of us had a discussion this week at Summit and decided to re-start the
> weekly Neutron Distributed Virtual Router (DVR) meeting. The goal is to
> help:
>
> -
Sorry for the late notice. I fell asleep yesterday before sending this out.
I'd like to get together at the afternoon session of the Neutron
contributors meetup today to discuss the next steps for addressing
operators' routed networks use case during the Mitaka cycle. If you
are interested in
Great work Calico!
Count me in when you have project meetings, I'd like to keep up.
Carl
On Oct 16, 2015 6:21 AM, "Neil Jerram" wrote:
> I'm happy to announce the first release of networking-calico. As it
> says at
+1 Great idea!
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> OpenStack has become quite big, and it's easier than ever to feel lost,
> to feel like nothing is really happening. It's more difficult than ever
> to feel part of a single
(Cross-posting to the operators list for feedback)
Thank you Ihar for starting this up. In the absence of any kind of
blog or other outlet of my own to disseminate this, let me share my
plans here...
Routed Networks:
My plans for Mitaka (and beyond) are around routed networks. During
Liberty,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> The Neutron L3 agent is only used with networking-ovn temporarily while
> we work through the L3 design and implementation in OVN itself. OVN
> will not use the L3 agent (or DVR) quite soon. Some initial L3 design
>
Interesting, I'll have a look. We should get this on the neutron drivers'
agenda. The drivers team has been dormant for a couple of weeks but I'm
sure it will pick up again very soon.
Carl
On Sep 20, 2015 12:28 AM, "Gal Sagie" wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I have sent a spec
On Sep 21, 2015 9:21 AM, "Venkata Anil" wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> I need your opinion on selecting router for floatingip when subnet is
connected to multiple routers.
>
> When multiple routers connected to a subnet, vm on that subnet will only
send packets destined for external
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Sisir Chowdhury wrote:
> Hi All -
>
> I have some proposal regarding ovn-networking project within Open-Stack.
>
> #1. Making Neutron-DVR feature intelligent enough so that we can
> completely remove Network Node(NN).
>
> Right
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Clark, Robert Graham
wrote:
> Is it possible to have separate floating-IP pools and grant a tenant access
> to only some of them?
It is possible to have multiple floating IP pools by creating multiple
external networks. However, it is not
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> Yes, the L2 semantics apply to the external network as well (at least with
> ML2).
This is true and should remain so. I think we've come to the
agreement that a neutron Network, external, shared, or not, should be
an L2
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
>>Also I believe that (c) is already true for Neutron external networks -
>> i.e. it doesn't make sense to assign a floating IP to an instance that is
>> directly on an external network. Is that correct?
>
> Well not
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> DNS is preferable, since humans don't remember ip's very well. IPv6 is much
> harder to remember then v4 too.
>
> DNS has its own issues, mostly, its usually not very quick to get a DNS entry
> updated. At our site (and
, and making the enhancements
needed to make this feature what it should be.
Carl
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron-L3-Subteam
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sean M. Collins <s...@coreitpro.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Carl Baldwin, Doug Wiegley, Matt Kassawara, Ryan Mo
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Gal Sagie wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I have searched and found many past efforts to implement port forwarding in
> Neutron.
I have heard a few express a desire for this use case a few times in
the past without gaining much traction. Your
This sounds like a good candidate for a "git bisect" operation [1]
since we already have a pretty tight window where things changed.
Carl
[1] http://git-scm.com/docs/git-bisect
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Assaf Muller wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Andrey
Thanks, I learned a thing or two from the document that you linked.
Thanks for reminding us of that.
Carl
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> Hi reviewers,
>
> several days ago, a semantically expand-only migration script was merged into
> contract
I was under the impression that we had a plan to stop allowing these
external updates break our gate jobs. It seems extremely unwise to
allow these forces outside of our control to disrupt us so much
especially in such a large project as Neutron. We lose a lot of
valuable time to these. I
Hi,
I did take the opportunity to read through your etherpad today. Many
of the solutions that you propose have been discussed in the past but
there just hasn't been a traction on the problem. You did a fine job
of writing this up and I think we should use your etherpad as a
central point for
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Armando M. wrote:
> You missed 'weekends' :)
I did miss weekends! While I went about my life last night blissfully
unaware of the problems that were brewing, you were on top of things
and came to our rescue. I thank you for your efforts and
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 31 August 2015 at 09:53, Jeremy Stanley <fu...@yuggoth.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-08-31 10:33:07 -0600 (-0600), Carl Baldwin wrote:
>> > I was under the impr
Hi,
It has been a long catch-up day for me. I have looked through the
patches. I have some feedback for them but I don't see why we can't
shoot for Liberty-3.
Carl
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
Thanks Neil, we'll review this during the drivers
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Mike Dorman mdor...@godaddy.com wrote:
I hope we can move this idea moving forward. I was disappointed to see
the spec abandoned.
While I think the ship has sailed for Liberty, this is going to be my
top priority for for Mitaka. Abandoning the spec may have
Kevin,
This is just a final top-post to say that I'm going to spend the next
week noodling over this discussion in more detail and trying to flesh
it out into a proposal. I think we're pretty much in agreement about
where the problems are in the model. It feels like we'll just be
beating a dead
I see this as two tasks: 1) A refactoring to share common code and 2)
the addition of another agent following the pattern of the others.
I'd prefer that the two tasks not be mixed in the same review because
it makes it more difficult to review as I think Kevin eluded to. For
me, either could be
Kevin, sorry for the delay in response. Keeping up on this thread was
getting difficult while on vacation.
tl;dr: I think it is worth it to talk through the idea of inserting
some sort of a subnet group thing in the model to which floating ips
(and router external gateways) will associate. It
On Jul 23, 2015 6:04 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
IOW, I don't think what I
proposed in adding L3 stuff to the network that wasn't already here.
The point I'm trying to make is that there isn't any L3 stuff on the
network itself. There are L3 things that depend on the network
On Jul 23, 2015 8:39 PM, Paul Carver pcar...@paulcarver.us wrote:
I think Kevin is right here. Network is fundamentally a layer 2
construct, it represents direct reachability. A network could in principle
support non-IP traffic (though in practice that may or may not work
depending on underlying
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
We ran in to this long ago.
What are some other examples? We've be good about keeping the network L2
only. Segments, VLAN transparency, and other properties of the network are
all L2.
Another thing is that we create
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that the existence of the multiprovider extension is an
important point for this discussion. Multiprovider, as I understand it,
allows describing a network composed of multiple L2 segments with implicit
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
Or, migration scheduling would need to respect the constraint that a
port may be confined to a set of hosts. How can be assign a port to a
different network? The VM would wake up and what? How would it know
to reconfigure
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
The issue with the availability zone solution is that we now force
availability zones in Nova to be constrained to network configuration. In
the L3 ToR/no overlay configuration, this means every rack is its own
availability
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Salvatore Orlando
salv.orla...@gmail.com wrote:
It is however important to ensure services like DHCP keep working as usual.
Treating segments as logical networks in their own right is the simples
solution to achieve this imho.
Agreed.
While the logical model
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
I proposed the port scheduling RFE to deal with the part about selecting a
network that is appropriate for the port based on provided hints and
host_id. [1]
Thanks for the pointer. I hadn't paid much attention to this RFE
It has been a week since this nomination. I'm pleased to confirm
Cedric as a core reviewer for these areas of focus. We look forward
to your continued contribution to the project!
Carl
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Carl Baldwin c...@ecbaldwin.net wrote:
As the Neutron L3 Lieutenant along
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:11 PM, John Belamaric jbelama...@infoblox.com wrote:
Wow, a lot to digest in these threads. If I can summarize my understanding
of the two proposals. Let me know whether I get this right. There are a
couple problems that need to be solved:
a. Scheduling based on
floating ips from the other blocks.
On 20 July 2015 at 10:33, Carl Baldwin c...@ecbaldwin.net wrote:
When creating a
port, the binding information would be sent to the IPAM system and the
system would choose an appropriate address block for the allocation.
Implicit in both is a need to provide
. I'm not convinced that
IPAM and routing really belong together like this.
If you made it this far in this email, you must have some feedback.
Please help us out.
Carl Baldwin
[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1458890
[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/196812/
[3]
http
these areas of focus, please vote
+1/-1 for the addition of Cedric to the team.
Thanks!
Carl Baldwin
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/reviewer:zzelle%2540gmail.com,n,z
[2] http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/neutron-group/90
Hi,
There was some discussion a while back on this subject. Some
alternatives were captured on etherpad [1] with pros and cons. Sorry
for the delay in responding. The initial implementation of DVR went
with centralized SNAT to reduce the scope of the effort and because of
a lack consensus
+1!
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:02 AM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello!
As the Lieutenant of the built-in control plane[1], I am proposing to add
Miguel Angel Ajo to the control plane core reviewer team.
His review stats are inline with the other core reviewers[2], and his work
on
It has been a week and feedback has been positive and supportive of
Brian's nomination. Welcome to the L3 core reviewer team, Brian.
Carl
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Carl Baldwin c...@ecbaldwin.net wrote:
Folks,
As the Neutron L3 Lieutenant [1] under the PTL, Kyle, I'd like to
propose
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
Do these kinds of test even make sense? And are they feasible at all? I
doubt we have any framework for injecting anything in neutron code under
test.
I was thinking about this in the context of a lot of the fixes we have
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
I have been then following a different approach. And a set of patches,
including a devref one [2], if up for review [3]. This hardly completes the
job: more work is required on the testing side, both as unit and
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
But zzzeek (Mike Bayer) is coming to our help; as a part of his DBFacade
work, we should be able to treat active/active cluster as active/passive for
writes, and active/active for reads. This means that the write set
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
There seems to be confusion on what causes deadlocks. Can one of you explain
to me how an optimistic locking strategy (a.k.a. compare-and-swap) results
in deadlocks?
Take the following example where two workers want to
+1!
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello!
As the Lieutenant of the built-in control plane[1], I would like Rossella
Sblendido to be a member of the control plane core reviewer team.
Her review stats are in line with other cores[2] and her feedback on
Hi all,
Cross posting to openstack-dev and openstack-operators
We discussed supporting multiple types of routers within a Neutron in
the L3 meeting this morning [1]. The team would like more feedback
from the community in order to refine use cases and also to consider
possible approaches to
Hi all,
Cross posting to openstack-dev and openstack-operators
We discussed supporting multiple types of routers within a Neutron in
the L3 meeting this morning [1]. The team would like more feedback
from the community in order to refine use cases and also to consider
possible approaches to
Neil,
I'm very glad to here of your interest. I have been talking with Kyle
Mestery about the rfe you mention [1] since the day he filed it. It
relates to a blueprint that I have been trying to get traction on [2]
in various forms for a while [*].
The rfe talks about attaching VMs directly to
+1!
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Henry Gessau ges...@cisco.com wrote:
As one of the Lieutenants [1] for the API and DB areas under the PTL, I would
like to propose Ann Kamyshnikova as a member of the Neutron API and DB core
reviewer team.
Ann has been a long time contributor in Neutron
+1
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all!
As the Lieutenant of the built-in control plane[1], I would like YAMAMOTO
Takashi to be a member of the control plane core reviewer team.
He has been extensively reviewing the entire codebase[2] and his
Folks,
As the Neutron L3 Lieutenant [1] under the PTL, Kyle, I'd like to
propose Brian Haley as a member of the Neutron L3 core reviewer team.
Brian has been a long time contributor in Neutron showing expertise
particularly in IPv6, iptables, and Linux kernel matters. His
knowledge and
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a bug in security groups here:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1359523
In the example scenario, it's caused by conntrack zones not being
isolated.
But it also applies to the following scenario that can't be
+1
Don't forget values and keys in addition to items. They aren't as common
but come up every so often. I think you can iterate the keys just by
iterating on the dict itself.
Carl
On Jun 9, 2015 6:18 PM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
I'm very glad folk are working on
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
After trying to reproduce this, I'm suspecting that the issue is actually on
the server side from failing to drain the agent report state queue in time.
I set the report_interval to 1 second on the agent and added a logging
Ann,
Thanks for bringing this up. It has been on the shelf for a while now.
Carl
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
One reason for not sending the heartbeat from a separate greenthread could
be that the agent is already doing it [1].
The current
+1
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
Folks, I'd like to propose Assaf Muller to be a member of the Neutron core
reviewer team. Assaf has been a long time contributor in Neutron, and he's
also recently become my testing Lieutenant. His influence and
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Brian Haley brian.ha...@hp.com wrote:
On 05/26/2015 01:12 PM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
From the bug Kevin reported it seems multiple dhcp agents per network
have been
completely broken by the fix for bug #1345947, so a revert of patch [1]
(and
stable
On May 21, 2015 9:06 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com
wrote:
After putting the whole OpenStack networking contributors community
through almost 8 cycles of pedant comments and annoying what if
questions, it is
@Gal, your proposal sounds like packet or flow rate limiting of data
through a port. What Ryan is proposing is rate limiting of api requests to
the server. They are separate topics, each may be a valid need on its own
but should be considered separately.
@Ryan, I tend to agree that rate
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
I suggest to not enable it by default, and then consider in L-3 whether we
should do this switch.
I agree. At the least, the switch should be decoupled from that
patch. I think decoupling them before merging the
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Mike Spreitzer mspre...@us.ibm.com wrote:
While I am a Neutron operator, I am also a customer of a lower layer network
provider. That network provider will happily give me a few /64. How do I
serve IPv6 subnets to lots of my tenants? In the bad old v4 days
This brings up something I'd like to discuss. We have a config option
called allow_overlapping_ips which actually defaults to False. It
has been suggested [1] that this should be removed from Neutron and
I've just started playing around with ripping it out [2] to see what
the consequences are.
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
Sean and team, thanks for all your awesome work on IPv6 in Neutron over the
past two cycles! And thanks for volunteering to disband and go out on top,
integrating back into the broader team. It's a good move and would make
Jacob,
I don't have your original email from which to reply. So, hopefully
this finds you just as well. The bad news is that I don't have an
immediate answer to address this. However, I thought it was worth
mentioning where the future may lead.
I have been thinking about the scenario that you
Stephen,
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Ma, Stephen B. stephen...@hp.com wrote:
As it stands currently, neutron on the stable/juno branch behaves as if
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164329/ was never merged. The merge of
patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153181 puts some LOG.debug
is something we'll look at again for Liberty. Carl
Baldwin leads the L3 work in Neutron, and would be a good person to sync
with on this work item. I suspect he may be looking for people to help
integrate the BGP work in Liberty, this may be a good place for you to jump
in.
I have a single stand alone
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Pavel Bondar pbon...@infoblox.com wrote:
Hi,
I made some investigation on the topic[1] and see several issues on this
way.
1. Plugin's create_port() is wrapped up in top level transaction for
create floating ip case[2], so it becomes more complicated to do
101 - 200 of 391 matches
Mail list logo