cool, then option 2 makes sense.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> The router is automatically created as well and is attached to the tenants
> network and an external network with the flag 'is_default' set to true.
> On Feb 24, 2016 6:25 PM, "Robert Starmer" wrote:
>
>> Mo
Hi,
thanks Carl for info about the DHCP plans.
Our DHCP concern is because currently the DHCP agent needs to be assigned
to a network and then it creates a port for each subnet.
In our infrastructure we only consider a network with several hundred
subnets.
By default the DHCP agent runs in the net
>From a public cloud perspective I'm not convinced that an opt-out argument
is the right way to go. A router in our context is a chargeable item,
because it has an external IP address, so automatically creating stuff
without the user specifying it is not an ideal outcome. Personally I'd
rather see
On 2016-02-26 11:21:47 + (+), Matt Jarvis wrote:
> From a public cloud perspective I'm not convinced that an opt-out argument
> is the right way to go. A router in our context is a chargeable item,
> because it has an external IP address, so automatically creating stuff
> without the user s
As I've already said in this thread, we automatically provide an initial
network and router for all our customers as part of our on-boarding process
so in our case this problem doesn't actually exist unless customers delete
their initial router and network. If a customer has already deleted these
f
For a user that's gone and deleted their network services, then wouldn't
they perhaps be savvy enough to deploy a network/subnet pair. If they
don't want to pay for the router then this is what they'd be working
towards (by deleting their initially provisioned service). As it stands
today, if you
Agreed, although I've learned over the years that second guessing what
actions customers may or may not take is usually a losing battle ;)
On 26 February 2016 at 13:55, Robert Starmer wrote:
> For a user that's gone and deleted their network services, then wouldn't
> they perhaps be savvy enough
Ha, now that's a truth :)
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Matt Jarvis
wrote:
> Agreed, although I've learned over the years that second guessing what
> actions customers may or may not take is usually a losing battle ;)
>
> On 26 February 2016 at 13:55, Robert Starmer wrote:
>
>> For a user th
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Belmiro Moreira
wrote:
> Hi,
> thanks Carl for info about the DHCP plans.
Olá, Belmiro.
> Our DHCP concern is because currently the DHCP agent needs to be assigned
> to a network and then it creates a port for each subnet.
Right, this is a concern for me too.
>
>Our DHCP concern is because currently the DHCP agent needs to be assigned
to a network and then it creates a port for each subnet.
The DHCP agent doesn't create a port per subnet. It only creates a port per
network and adds extra IPs to that port as extra subnets are added to the
network.
In the
HTML rendered version:
http://www.openstack.org/blog/2016/02/openstack-developer-mailing-list-digest-20160226/
Audience for Release Notes
==
* We have 3 potential audiences for release notes:
- Developers consuming libraries or other code directly.
- Deployers and
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016, at 04:06 AM, Matt Jarvis wrote:
> Out of interest, are there really OpenStack public clouds where the cloud
> provider doesn't automatically provision an initial network and router ?
>
I can think of two off the top of my head. HPCloud definitely didn't
when I got my accounts
12 matches
Mail list logo
