[openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

Hey all! If any of you have ever gotten drunk with me, you'll know I hate floating IPs more than I hate being stabbed in the face with a very angry fish. However, that doesn't really matter. What should matter is "what is the most sane thing we can do for our users" As you might have seen

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

Monty Taylor wrote on 09/15/2015 11:04:07 AM: > a) an update to python-novaclient to allow a named network to be passed > to satisfy the "you have more than one network" - the nics argument is > still useful for more complex things I am not using the latest, but rather Juno. I find that in ma

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

Hi all, One solution to this was a neutron spec that was added for a “get me a network” api, championed by Jay Pipes, which would auto-assign a public network on vm boot. It looks like it was resource starved in Liberty, though: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/get-me-a-network <

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 15 September 2015 at 08:27, Mike Spreitzer wrote: > Monty Taylor wrote on 09/15/2015 11:04:07 AM: > > > a) an update to python-novaclient to allow a named network to be passed > > to satisfy the "you have more than one network" - the nics argument is > > still useful for more complex things >

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

That's exactly right, and we need to get this merged early in Mitaka. We'll discuss this in a design summit session in Tokyo in fact to ensure it's resourced correctly and continues to address the evolving needs in this space. On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Doug Wiegley wrote: > Hi all, > > O

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 15 September 2015 at 08:04, Monty Taylor wrote: > Hey all! > > If any of you have ever gotten drunk with me, you'll know I hate floating > IPs more than I hate being stabbed in the face with a very angry fish. > > However, that doesn't really matter. What should matter is "what is the > most s

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

Excerpts from Armando M.'s message of 2015-09-15 09:30:35 -0700: > On 15 September 2015 at 08:04, Monty Taylor wrote: > > > Hey all! > > > > If any of you have ever gotten drunk with me, you'll know I hate floating > > IPs more than I hate being stabbed in the face with a very angry fish. > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

To: openstack-dev Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model Excerpts from Armando M.'s message of 2015-09-15 09:30:35 -0700: > On 15 September 2015 at 08:04, Monty Taylor wrote: > > > Hey all! > > > > If any

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 9/15/2015 10:27 AM, Mike Spreitzer wrote: Monty Taylor wrote on 09/15/2015 11:04:07 AM: > a) an update to python-novaclient to allow a named network to be passed > to satisfy the "you have more than one network" - the nics argument is > still useful for more complex things I am not usi

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

:/ I've had to work around that in heat templates before. Thanks, Kevin From: Matt Riedemann [mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:28 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][de

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 15 September 2015 at 11:28, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > > On 9/15/2015 10:27 AM, Mike Spreitzer wrote: > >> Monty Taylor wrote on 09/15/2015 11:04:07 AM: >> >> > a) an update to python-novaclient to allow a named network to be passed >> > to satisfy the "you have more than one network" - the

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

"Fox, Kevin M" wrote on 09/15/2015 02:57:10 PM: > From: "Fox, Kevin M" > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > Date: 09/15/2015 02:59 PM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed > &

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

"Fox, Kevin M" wrote on 09/15/2015 02:00:03 PM: > From: "Fox, Kevin M" > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > Date: 09/15/2015 02:02 PM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed > &

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

nikazemi [m...@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 12:23 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model "Fox, Kevin M" wrote on 09/15/2015 02:00:03 PM:

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 15 September 2015 at 10:02, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Armando M.'s message of 2015-09-15 09:30:35 -0700: > > On 15 September 2015 at 08:04, Monty Taylor > wrote: > > > > > Hey all! > > > > > > If any of you have ever gotten drunk with me, you'll know I hate > floating > > > IPs mor

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015, at 11:00 AM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > We run several clouds where there are multiple external networks. the > "just run it in on THE public network" doesn't work. :/ Maybe this would be better expressed as "just run it on an existing public network" then? > > I also strongly rec

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

" > > Date: 09/15/2015 03:49 PM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed > 'default' network model > > I'm not quite sure how to read your question. I think it can be > taken multiple ways. I'll guess at what you meant though. If I &

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

Clark Boylan wrote on 09/15/2015 04:06:26 PM: > > I also strongly recommend to users to put vms on a private network and > > use floating ip's/load balancers. For many reasons. Such as, if you > > don't, the ip that gets assigned to the vm helps it become a pet. you > > can't replace the vm and g

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

day, September 15, 2015 1:03 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model Thanks Kevin for your answer. My question was different. You mentioned in your email that you run seve

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

"Armando M." wrote on 09/15/2015 03:50:24 PM: > On 15 September 2015 at 10:02, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Armando M.'s message of 2015-09-15 09:30:35 -0700: ... > As with the Glance image upload API discussion, this is an example > of an extremely common use case that is either comple

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

thing. Its primary importance is in enabling things to be more cattleish and helping with dns security. Thanks, Kevin From: Clark Boylan [cboy...@sapwetik.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 1:06 PM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re:

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

mary importance > is in enabling things to be more cattleish and helping with dns security. > > Thanks, > Kevin > > > > > > > ________________ > From: Clark Boylan [cboy...@sapwetik.org] > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 1:06 PM > To

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 2015-09-15 2:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > We run several clouds where there are multiple external networks. the "just > run it in on THE public network" doesn't work. :/ > > I also strongly recommend to users to put vms on a private network and use > floating ip's/load balancers. For many rea

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

> On Sep 15, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Mathieu Gagné wrote: > >> On 2015-09-15 2:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: >> We run several clouds where there are multiple external networks. the "just >> run it in on THE public network" doesn't work. :/ >> >> I also strongly recommend to users to put vms on a priv

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

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 I'm sure, others), I

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 2015-09-15 18:00:03 + (+), Fox, Kevin M wrote: > We run several clouds where there are multiple external networks. > the "just run it in on THE public network" doesn't work. :/ Is this for a public servive provider? If so, do you expect your users to have some premonition which tells th

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 09/15/2015 06:16 PM, Armando M. wrote: On 15 September 2015 at 08:27, Mike Spreitzer mailto:mspre...@us.ibm.com>> wrote: Monty Taylor mailto:mord...@inaugust.com>> wrote on 09/15/2015 11:04:07 AM: > a) an update to python-novaclient to allow a named network to be passed > t

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 09/15/2015 06:30 PM, Armando M. wrote: On 15 September 2015 at 08:04, Monty Taylor mailto:mord...@inaugust.com>> wrote: Hey all! If any of you have ever gotten drunk with me, you'll know I hate floating IPs more than I hate being stabbed in the face with a very angry fish.

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 15 September 2015 at 14:04, Mike Spreitzer wrote: > "Armando M." wrote on 09/15/2015 03:50:24 PM: > > > On 15 September 2015 at 10:02, Doug Hellmann > wrote: > > Excerpts from Armando M.'s message of 2015-09-15 09:30:35 -0700: > ... > > As with the Glance image upload API discussion, this is

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 09/15/2015 08:28 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 9/15/2015 10:27 AM, Mike Spreitzer wrote: Monty Taylor wrote on 09/15/2015 11:04:07 AM: > a) an update to python-novaclient to allow a named network to be passed > to satisfy the "you have more than one network" - the nics argument is > sti

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 15 September 2015 at 15:11, Mathieu Gagné wrote: > On 2015-09-15 2:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > > We run several clouds where there are multiple external networks. the > "just run it in on THE public network" doesn't work. :/ > > > > I also strongly recommend to users to put vms on a private n

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 15 September 2015 at 16:01, Monty Taylor wrote: > On 09/15/2015 06:16 PM, Armando M. wrote: > >> >> >> On 15 September 2015 at 08:27, Mike Spreitzer > > wrote: >> >> Monty Taylor mailto:mord...@inaugust.com>> >> wrote on 09/15/2015 11:04:07 AM: >> >> > a

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 2015-09-15 7:44 PM, Armando M. wrote: > > > On 15 September 2015 at 15:11, Mathieu Gagné > wrote: > > On 2015-09-15 2:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > > We run several clouds where there are multiple external networks. the > "just run it in on THE public netw

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

Hi all, If I can attempt to summarize this thread: “We want simple networks with VMs” Ok, in progress, start here: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/get-me-a-network “It should work with multiple networks” Same sp

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 2015-09-15 8:06 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: > > “Neutron doesn’t get it and never will.” > > I’m not sure how all ‘yes’ above keeps translating to this old saw, but > is there any tiny chance we can stop living in the past and instead > focus on the use cases that we want to solve? > I apologize

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 2015-09-15 6:49 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: > > >> On Sep 15, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Mathieu Gagné wrote: >> >>> On 2015-09-15 2:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: >>> We run several clouds where there are multiple external networks. the "just >>> run it in on THE public network" doesn't work. :/ >>> >>> I a

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

Sorry, didn’t mean that to come down as a triple pile-on, with me doing it twice. My bad, I’m sorry. Thanks, doug > On Sep 15, 2015, at 6:11 PM, Mathieu Gagné wrote: > > On 2015-09-15 8:06 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: >> >> “Neutron doesn’t get it and never will.” >> >> I’m not sure how all ‘yes

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

vin From: Clark Boylan [cboy...@sapwetik.org<mailto:cboy...@sapwetik.org>] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 1:06 PM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack]

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 15 September 2015 at 16:08, Monty Taylor wrote: > On 09/15/2015 06:30 PM, Armando M. wrote: > >> >> >> On 15 September 2015 at 08:04, Monty Taylor > > wrote: >> >> Hey all! >> >> If any of you have ever gotten drunk with me, you'll know I hate >> floati

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

On 09/16/2015 02:06 AM, Doug Wiegley wrote: Hi all, If I can attempt to summarize this thread: “We want simple networks with VMs” Ok, in progress, start here: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/get-me-a-network \o/ “It should work with multiple networks” Same spec, click abov

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

ember 15, 2015 3:11 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model On 2015-09-15 2:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > We run several clouds where there are multiple external networks

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

015 3:52 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > DNS is preferable, since humans don't remember ip&#x

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

+1 From: Monty Taylor [mord...@inaugust.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 4:33 PM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model On 09/15/2015 08:28 PM, Matt

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

Hi Kevin, On 2015-09-15 8:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > I am not a neutron developer, but an operator and a writer of cloud apps. So far, I'm only an operator and heavy cloud apps user (if you can call Vagrant an app). =) > Yes, it is sort of a philosophical issue, and I have stated my side > of

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][devstack] New proposed 'default' network model

Monty, The architectural changes to the installation guide for Liberty [1] support booting VMs on both the public/external/provider and private/project/self-service networks. Also, we should consider including similar "hybrid" scenarios in the networking guide [2] so deployers don't have to choos