Public bug reported:
The current implementation of bandwidth limiting rules only supports egress
bandwidth
limiting.
Use cases
=========
There are cases where ingress bandwidth limiting is more important than
egress limiting, for example when the workload of the cloud is mostly a
consumer of data (crawlers, datamining, etc), and administrators need to ensure
other workloads won't be affected.
Other example are CSPs which need to plan & allocate the bandwidth
provided to customers, or provide different levels of network service.
API/Model impact
===============
The BandwidthLimiting rules will be added a direction field (egress/ingress),
which by default will be egress to match the current behaviour and, therefore
be backward compatible.
Combining egress/ingress would be achieved by including an egress
bandwidth limit and an ingress bandwidth limit.
** Affects: neutron
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Tags: qos rfe
** Description changed:
-
The current implementation of bandwidth limiting rules only supports egress
bandwidth
limiting.
Use cases
========
- There are cases where ingress bandwidth limiting is more important than
egress limiting,
- for example when the workload of the cloud is mostly a consumer of data
(crawlers,
- datamining, etc), and administrators need to ensure other workloads won't be
affected.
+ There are cases where ingress bandwidth limiting is more important than
+ egress limiting, for example when the workload of the cloud is mostly a
consumer of data (crawlers, datamining, etc), and administrators need to ensure
other workloads won't be affected.
- Other example are CSPs which need to plan & allocate the bandwidth provided
to
- customers.
+ Other example are CSPs which need to plan & allocate the bandwidth
+ provided to customers.
API/Model impact
===============
- The BandwidthLimiting rules will be added a direction field (egress/ingress),
- which by default will be egress to match the current behaviour and, therefore
+ The BandwidthLimiting rules will be added a direction field (egress/ingress),
which by default will be egress to match the current behaviour and, therefore
be backward compatible.
- Combining egress/ingress would be achieved by including an egress bandwidth
limit
- and an ingress bandwidth limit.
+ Combining egress/ingress would be achieved by including an egress
+ bandwidth limit and an ingress bandwidth limit.
** Description changed:
The current implementation of bandwidth limiting rules only supports egress
bandwidth
limiting.
Use cases
- ========
-
+ =========
There are cases where ingress bandwidth limiting is more important than
egress limiting, for example when the workload of the cloud is mostly a
consumer of data (crawlers, datamining, etc), and administrators need to ensure
other workloads won't be affected.
Other example are CSPs which need to plan & allocate the bandwidth
provided to customers.
API/Model impact
===============
The BandwidthLimiting rules will be added a direction field (egress/ingress),
which by default will be egress to match the current behaviour and, therefore
be backward compatible.
Combining egress/ingress would be achieved by including an egress
bandwidth limit and an ingress bandwidth limit.
** Description changed:
The current implementation of bandwidth limiting rules only supports egress
bandwidth
limiting.
Use cases
=========
There are cases where ingress bandwidth limiting is more important than
egress limiting, for example when the workload of the cloud is mostly a
consumer of data (crawlers, datamining, etc), and administrators need to ensure
other workloads won't be affected.
Other example are CSPs which need to plan & allocate the bandwidth
- provided to customers.
+ provided to customers, or provide different levels of network service.
API/Model impact
===============
The BandwidthLimiting rules will be added a direction field (egress/ingress),
which by default will be egress to match the current behaviour and, therefore
be backward compatible.
Combining egress/ingress would be achieved by including an egress
bandwidth limit and an ingress bandwidth limit.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Yahoo!
Engineering Team, which is subscribed to neutron.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1560961
Title:
[RFE] Allow instance-ingress bandwidth limiting
Status in neutron:
New
Bug description:
The current implementation of bandwidth limiting rules only supports egress
bandwidth
limiting.
Use cases
=========
There are cases where ingress bandwidth limiting is more important than
egress limiting, for example when the workload of the cloud is mostly a
consumer of data (crawlers, datamining, etc), and administrators need to ensure
other workloads won't be affected.
Other example are CSPs which need to plan & allocate the bandwidth
provided to customers, or provide different levels of network service.
API/Model impact
===============
The BandwidthLimiting rules will be added a direction field (egress/ingress),
which by default will be egress to match the current behaviour and, therefore
be backward compatible.
Combining egress/ingress would be achieved by including an egress
bandwidth limit and an ingress bandwidth limit.
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1560961/+subscriptions
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yahoo-eng-team
Post to : yahoo-eng-team@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yahoo-eng-team
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
