Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Unanswered questions in
object model refactor blueprint
Hi Bo--
Haproxy is able to have IPv4 front-ends with IPv6 back-ends (and visa
versa) because it actually initiates a separate TCP connection
: *Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:18:42 AM
*Subject: *Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Unanswered questions in
object model refactor blueprint
Hi Brandon!
Please see inline..
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Brandon Logan
brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote:
Hi Vijay,
On Tue, 2014-05-27
Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:18:42 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Unanswered questions in object
model refactor blueprint
Hi Brandon!
Please see inline
, 2014 1:17:57 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Unanswered questions in object
model refactor blueprint
Hi Bo,
Sorry, I forgot to respond but yes what Stephen said lol :)
From: Stephen Balukoff [sbaluk...@bluebox.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 10:42 PM
To: OpenStack
Hi Vijay,
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 16:27 -0700, Vijay B wrote:
Hi Brandon,
The current reviews of the schema itself are absolutely valid and
necessary, and must go on. However, the place of implementation of
this schema needs to be clarified. Rather than make any changes
whatsoever to the
Hi Brandon!
Please see inline..
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com
wrote:
Hi Vijay,
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 16:27 -0700, Vijay B wrote:
Hi Brandon,
The current reviews of the schema itself are absolutely valid and
necessary, and must go
Hi Vijay,
On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 15:18 -0700, Vijay B wrote:
Hi Brandon!
Please see inline..
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Brandon Logan
brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote:
Hi Vijay,
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 16:27 -0700, Vijay B wrote:
Hi
(not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:18:42 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Unanswered questions in object
model refactor blueprint
Hi Brandon!
Please see inline..
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo
Referencing this blueprint:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89903/5/specs/juno/lbaas-api-and-objmodel-improvement.rst
Anyone who has suggestions to possible issues or can answer some of
these questions please respond.
1. LoadBalancer to Listener relationship M:N vs 1:N
The main reason we went
Thanks, Brandon. My opinion, reproduced from an IRC conversation that we
had earlier today:
I don't have a strong objection, just an implementation shudder. Of the
two backends that I'm familiar with, they support 1:N, not N:N So, we
fake it by duping listeners on the fly. But, consider the
Hi Brandon,
The current reviews of the schema itself are absolutely valid and
necessary, and must go on. However, the place of implementation of this
schema needs to be clarified. Rather than make any changes whatsoever to
the existing neutron db schema for LBaaS, this new db schema outlined
Hi y'all!
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com
wrote:
Referencing this blueprint:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89903/5/specs/juno/lbaas-api-and-objmodel-improvement.rst
Anyone who has suggestions to possible issues or can answer some of
these
@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Unanswered questions in object
model refactor blueprint
Hi y'all!
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Brandon Logan
brandon.lo...@rackspace.commailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote:
Referencing this blueprint:
https
: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 at 8:42 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Unanswered questions in
object model refactor blueprint
Hi y'all!
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Brandon
14 matches
Mail list logo
