epted though.
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 6:49 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Should subnet be
optional on member create?
I could see it
t; > > >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Jain, Vivek
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If member port (IP address) is allocated by neutron,
> > then why do we need
> > > >>>
PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Should subnet be
optional on member create?
Any additional thoughts and opinions people want to share on this. I
don't have a horse in this race as long as we don't make dangerous
assumptions ab
hen
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Jain, Vivek
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> If member port (IP address) is allocated by neutron,
> then why do we need
> > >>> to spec
ser story (lb in cloud load balancing IPs
> outside the cloud)
>
> -Sam.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 6:56 AM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: [openstack-de
>>>
> > >>> If member port (IP address) is allocated by neutron, then why do we
> need
> > >>> to specify it explicitly? It can be derived by LBaaS driver
> implicitly.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Vivek
> >
plicitly.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Vivek
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 1/17/16, 1:05 AM, "Samuel Bercovici" wrote:
> >>>
> >
t;
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vivek
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/17/16, 1:05 AM, "Samuel Bercovici" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Btw.
>>>>
>>>> I am still in favor on associating the su
vici" wrote:
>>
>> >Btw.
>> >
>> >I am still in favor on associating the subnets to the LB and then not
>> > specify them per node at all.
>> >
>> >-Sam.
>> >
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-
>&g
> >Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 10:14 AM
> >To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Should subnet be
> optional on member create?
> >
> >+1
> >Subnet should be mandatory
> >
&
e user story (lb in cloud load balancing IPs
>outside the cloud)
>
>-Sam.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
>Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 6:56 AM
>To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>Subject: [openstack-dev]
questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Should subnet be
optional on member create?
+1
Subnet should be mandatory
The only thing this makes supporting load balancing servers which are not
running in the cloud more challenging to support.
But I do not see this as a huge user
: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 6:56 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Should subnet be optional on
member create?
I filed a bug [1] a while ago that subnet_id should be an optional parameter
I filed a bug [1] a while ago that subnet_id should be an optional
parameter for member creation. Currently it is required. Review [2] is
makes it optional.
The original thinking was that if the load balancer is ever connected to
that same subnet, be it by another member on that subnet or the vi
14 matches
Mail list logo
