There is a long contentious dev thread going on here [1] about how Nova
should handle the Neutron auto-allocate-topology API (referred to as the
'get-me-a-network' effort).
The point is to reduce the complexity for users to simply boot an
instance and be able to ssh into it without having to f
On 02/19/2016 11:07 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
There is a long contentious dev thread going on here [1] about how Nova
should handle the Neutron auto-allocate-topology API (referred to as the
'get-me-a-network' effort).
The point is to reduce the complexity for users to simply boot an
instance an
Sorry for top posting.
Just wanted to say I agree with Monty (and didn't want you to have to scroll
way down to read it). When we switched to neutron the thing people said was
"Why do I have to do all this other stuff now?". So long as the tools exist for
folks to do more powerful things if th
>From a purely benchmarking aspect it makes sense. It's like a burn in test
case use. That only makes it make sense.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Kevin Bringard (kevinbri) <
kevin...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Sorry for top posting.
>
> Just wanted to say I agree with Monty (and didn't want you to
___
Kris Lindgren
Senior Linux Systems Engineer
GoDaddy
On 2/19/16, 10:07 AM, "Matt Riedemann" wrote:
>There is a long contentious dev thread going on here [1] about how Nova
>should handle the Neutron auto-allocate-topolog
On 2/19/2016 4:48 PM, Kris G. Lindgren wrote:
___
Kris Lindgren
Senior Linux Systems Engineer
GoDaddy
On 2/19/16, 10:07 AM, "Matt Riedemann" wrote:
There is a long contentious dev thread going on here [1] about how Nova
On 2/20/2016 5:29 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 2/19/2016 4:48 PM, Kris G. Lindgren wrote:
___
Kris Lindgren
Senior Linux Systems Engineer
GoDaddy
On 2/19/16, 10:07 AM, "Matt Riedemann"
wrote:
There is a long contenti
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Matt Riedemann
wrote:
>
>
> On 2/20/2016 5:29 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/19/2016 4:48 PM, Kris G. Lindgren wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Kris Lindgren
>>> Senior Linux Systems Enginee
Most service environments I've worked with will deploy (often
automatically) a first tenant network and router, allowing for the simple
case of "deploy a vm, and it auto attaches to the only network" model. So
in effect, this is anticipated, if not expected, behavior. If on the other
hand, there
On our public cloud we do exactly as Robert describes - as part of our
customer onboarding process, we automatically create a default network and
router to our provider network, so that a tenant can just spin up a VM if
they want to. Obviously the customer can then delete this if they wish, but
it
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:
> Most service environments I've worked with will deploy (often
> automatically) a first tenant netwo
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
>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 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
19 matches
Mail list logo
