pache.org/r/18552/#comment66491>
Shouldn't the exception be re-throwed ?
- Pedro Marques
On Feb. 27, 2014, 12:56 a.m., Suresh Balineni wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>
/juniper-contrail/test/resources/providerContext.xml
PRE-CREATION
plugins/network-elements/juniper-contrail/test/resources/publicNetworkContext.xml
PRE-CREATION
plugins/pom.xml ca41dff
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14549/diff/
Testing
---
Integration test passes.
Thanks,
Pedro
.
Thanks,
Pedro Marques
.
Thanks,
Pedro Marques
Testing
---
Integration test passes.
Thanks,
Pedro Marques
://reviews.apache.org/r/14549/diff/
Testing
---
Integration test passes.
Thanks,
Pedro Marques
/diff/
Testing
---
Integration test passes.
Thanks,
Pedro Marques
al
> > router on the dataplane that does the forwarding?
> > + is BGP/MPLS required on the IP fabric and the Hypervisors
> >
>
> Pedro Marques wrote:
> Murali,
> We didn't add a new isolation type to avoid changing the CloudStack code.
> The current define
s made; no need for VLANs or MPLS
on the fabric.
- Pedro
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/14549/#review26819
---
On Oc
/network-elements/juniper-contrail/test/resources/serviceContext.xml
623d188
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14549/diff/
Testing
---
Integration test passes.
Thanks,
Pedro Marques
test that verifies that the plugin reacts correctly
to the API for network create and delete and VM instantiation. We also run
automated tests against a setup with one cloudstack management server and two
Xen compute hosts.
Thanks,
Pedro Marques
I guess i'll answer my own question...
On May 14, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> Chiradeep (others),
>
> Pedro Marques is working on a POC for an integration of Juniper's Contrail
> technology. He's Cc'ed on this thread.
>
> There are a numb
12 matches
Mail list logo
