to as their default pool.
Regards,
-Sam.
From: Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:35 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Cc: Youcef Laribi; Samuel Bercovici; sbaluk...@bluebox.net; Mark McClain;
Salvatore Orlando
Subject: [Neutron
and the id.
Thanks,
Eugene.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.commailto:samu...@radware.com wrote:
Hi,
My concern is that if from some reason the driver implementer would like to
reflect the name also in the backend device, than an update should also be
calling
Hi,
My concern is that if from some reason the driver implementer would like to
reflect the name also in the backend device, than an update should also be
calling the driver.
Using readable names also makes sense on the back-end device.
-Sam.
From: Oleg Bondarev
Have modified the document access, let me know if you still have issues.
From: Stephen Balukoff [mailto:sbaluk...@bluebox.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:02 AM
To: Samuel Bercovici
Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions);
rw3...@att.com; David Patterson; Eugene
Hi,
We plan to address LBaaS in ceilometer for Juno.
A blue print was registered
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/lbaas-ceilometer-integration
Please use the following google document to add include requirements and
thoughts at:
(in our case, haproxy). I
suppose we could invent our own pseudo rule language-- but why bother when
haproxy has already done this, eh?
I'll take a look at the SSL stuff next, then the LoadBalancerInstance stuff...
Thanks,
Stephen
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Samuel Bercovici
samu
for model change - Layer
7 support
Howdy, Sam!
Thanks also for your speedy response. Comments / additional questions are
in-line below:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.commailto:samu...@radware.com wrote:
Sam We have reviewed this based on capabilities that we
Hi Stephen,
To make sure I understand, which model is fine Basic/Simple or New.
Thanks,
-Sam.
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Gran [mailto:stephen.g...@theguardian.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 8:22 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re:
for now will do most of
what I think people want to do with SSL termination.
Cheers,
On 05/12/13 09:57, Samuel Bercovici wrote:
Hi Stephen,
To make sure I understand, which model is fine Basic/Simple or New.
Thanks,
-Sam.
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Gran
Hi Eugene,
We currently support out-of-the-box VIP and Nodes on the same network.
The VIP can be associated with a floating IP if need to access from the
external network.
We are considering other options but will address as we get to this.
Regards,
-Sam.
From: Eugene
questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] SSL Termination
write-up
Hi,
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 08:24 +, Samuel Bercovici wrote:
Hi,
Evgeny has outlined the wiki for the proposed change at:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/SSL which is in line
...@citrix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:06 AM
To: Eugene Nikanorov
Cc: Samuel Bercovici; Avishay Balderman; openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: RE: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] SSL Termination write-up
Hi Eugene,
The proposal is simple, create a separate resource
Hi Stephen,
When this was discussed in the past, customer were not happy about storing
their SSL certificates in the OpenStack database as plain fields as they felt
that this is not secured enough.
Do you say, that you are OK with storing SSL certificates in the OpenStack
database?
-Sam.
: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] SSL Termination write-up
Hi,
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 08:24 +, Samuel Bercovici wrote:
Hi,
Evgeny has outlined the wiki for the proposed change at:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/SSL which is in line
with what was discussed during
Eugene and Mark,
We get interest in the current OpenStack LBaaS solution.
Backward compatibility should be considered as part of any feature we add for
icehouse.
I think that the any such BP should first address the best way to implement the
feature (as Eugene did) but then also solve the
Hi,
I think that in the Atlas/Libra model loadbalancer is used in a similar way
as the VIP object in Neutron/LBaaS.
Regards,
-Sam.
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Hutchings [mailto:and...@linuxjedi.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 5:23 PM
To:
Hi,
I will not be able to join the meeting this time.
For item 1. We are starting to work on SSL termination and L7 based routing.
Regards,
-Sam.
On Nov 12, 2013, at 9:30 PM, Eugene Nikanorov
enikano...@mirantis.commailto:enikano...@mirantis.com wrote:
Hi folks,
LBaaS subteam
Hi,
I think that the current implementation is fine.
This are two different aspects.
The status describes whether the last a-sync activity is active or whether it
is not.
The admin status describes what the user wishes for the object status to be.
Follows an example: If I update the VIP with
Hi,
I have created two document to discuss SSL termination and L7 Rules at:
SSL termination :
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qnoJLD1txY5wnjx4k480AtEGCOEtkPMvTzxPo3_DPcs/edit?usp=sharing
SSL BP: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/lbaas-ssl-termination
L7 Rules:
Hi,
Please find a summary of talks and discussion related to LBaaS for the summit
at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vjm57lh7PnXDelOy-VxsJkzc8QRiNN368sS11ePs_vA/edit?pli=1#heading=h.6doqijxd389j
I have also added the list bellow to it.
We can review in the meeting today.
Regards,
Hi,
I assume you are proposing 8:00AM and not 8:00PM PDT.
I will not be able to attend on this time.
Better time for me is between 10:00AM PDT - 12:00AM PDT
Thanks,
-Sam.
From: Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:51 AM
To:
Hi,
Although not a voting member, I would like to thank Mark for a phenomenal job
on Neutron and LBaaS and would like to see him continue to lead Neutron forward.
Regards,
-Sam.
-Original Message-
From: Mark McClain [mailto:mark.mccl...@dreamhost.com]
Sent: Friday, September
one tenant to a
non-shared network in another tenant
Hi
I have opened two bugs that are related to the topic below:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1221315
https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1221320
Thanks
Avishay
From: Samuel Bercovici
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 1:05 PM
removing the filter of tenant_id + the pathc bellow, I get the behavior
that as admin, I can createVMs connected to another tenants private network but
as non-admin I am not able to do so.
Regards,
-Sam.
From: Samuel Bercovici
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:32 PM
To: OpenStack
, and allowing admin
users to create ports on any network - I don't think this would constitute a
potential vulnerability, as in neutron is someone's manages to impersonate an
admin user, he/she can make much more damage.
Salvatore
On 31 July 2013 16:11, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.commailto:samu
(iptables_rules)
From: Aaron Rosen [mailto:aro...@nicira.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:58 PM
To: Samuel Bercovici
Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List; sorla...@nicira.com; Avishay Balderman;
gary.kot...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Chalenges with highly available
Hi,
I have completely missed this discussion as it does not have quantum/Neutron in
the subject (modify it now)
I think that the security group is the right place to control this.
I think that this might be only allowed to admins.
Let me explain what we need which is more than just disable
Adding the original people conversing on this subject to this mail.
Regards,
-Sam.
On Jul 19, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Samuel Bercovici
samu...@radware.commailto:samu...@radware.com wrote:
Hi,
I have completely missed this discussion as it does not have quantum/Neutron in
the subject
the
change back.
-Sam.
From: Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 3:10 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Cc: Avishay Balderman; Samuel Bercovici
Subject: [Quantum][LBaaS] Feedback needed: Healthmonitor workflow.
Hi community,
Here's a question
101 - 129 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
