Mike, pls share the solution, some are interested even if is a hack as long as it gets the job done.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Jacob Godin <jacobgo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Mike, > > Would you send along your solution off-list? I'm curious, and I won't > judge :) > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Mike Spreitzer <mspre...@us.ibm.com> > wrote: > >> Jacob Godin <jacobgo...@gmail.com> wrote on 04/14/2015 05:12:48 PM: >> >> > Absolutely. We're trying to reduce our public IPv4 usage, so having >> > one per tenant network (not even including floating IPs) is a drain. >> >> I am having exactly the same issue. I am currently solving it with a >> different hack that nobody likes, I will not even describe it here. But >> total agreement that the problem is important. >> >> IPv6 is the ultimate answer, provided there is a reasonably smooth >> transition. I think we will need to support a tenant that is using both v4 >> and v6 during his transition. This will require NAT between a tenant's v4 >> and v6. >> >> Regards, >> Mike > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
