On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 04:32:33AM +, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> I can think of a use case where the user wants static Ips, but with
> range/overlap/reuse checks.
+1, although perhaps the tracking of IPs could be optional? Would it be
worth breaking out IPAM as a "service" provided to networks
I can think of a use case where the user wants static Ips, but with
range/overlap/reuse checks.
On 7/11/13 4:41 PM, "Murali Reddy" wrote:
>On 11/07/13 2:33 PM, "Prasanna Santhanam" wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 12:27:28PM +0530, Girish Shilamkar wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> In order to creat
Hello Murali,
Thanks for your input. I have submitted a patch to remove this test.
Regards,
Girish
On 11-Jul-2013, at 4:41 PM, Murali Reddy wrote:
> On 11/07/13 2:33 PM, "Prasanna Santhanam" wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 12:27:28PM +0530, Girish Shilamkar wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> In o
On 11/07/13 2:33 PM, "Prasanna Santhanam" wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 12:27:28PM +0530, Girish Shilamkar wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> In order to create shared network StartIp/endIp/gateway/netmask are
>> required. I am looking at an old test case which creates shared
>> network without IP range
>
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 12:27:28PM +0530, Girish Shilamkar wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In order to create shared network StartIp/endIp/gateway/netmask are
> required. I am looking at an old test case which creates shared
> network without IP range
> and deploys vm in it. It of course fails as IP range is