On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
> Indeed, "public" in our context means "shared among several tenants". We are
> not dealing with tenant access to the Internet or direct association of VIF
> to public IP addresses.
>
> The basic model is still the 'guest network' model. T
Indeed, "public" in our context means "shared among several tenants". We
are not dealing with tenant access to the Internet or direct association of
VIF to public IP addresses.
The basic model is still the 'guest network' model. This blueprint, for
which some code is already available on gerrit, j
Hi Dan,
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Tomoe Sugihara wrote:
>>
>> Hi Salvatore,
>>
>> I have a few questions regarding your proposal mostly related to L3
>> services.
>> I've read in another thread that L3 services are out of Quantu
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Tomoe Sugihara wrote:
> Hi Salvatore,
>
> I have a few questions regarding your proposal mostly related to L3
> services.
> I've read in another thread that L3 services are out of Quantum's scope for
> Folsom
Actually, for Folsom-3 we are working on a blueprint
Hi Salvatore,
I have a few questions regarding your proposal mostly related to L3 services.
I've read in another thread that L3 services are out of Quantum's scope for
Folsom, but I'd like to know how this public network model would work
with those services.
1. What are the assumptions for publi
On 12 July 2012 05:37, Yong Sheng Gong wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If we just use one flag, it can represent just two values True or False.
>>> If we want to represent three values True, False or not specified, we have
>>> to use --public True or --public False or nothing
pecified, we have
>> to use --public True or --public False or nothing at all.
>>
>> So it is a three-values logic.
>>
>>
>> -----openstack-bounces+gongysh=cn.ibm....@lists.launchpad.net wrote:
>> -
>> To: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
>> From: Endre
t;mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net>
From: Endre Karlson
Sent by: openstack-bounces+gongysh=cn.ibm@lists.launchpad.net
<mailto:openstack-bounces+gongysh=cn.ibm@lists.launchpad.net>
Date: 07/12/2012 07:53PM
Subject: [Openstack] Fwd: [Quantum] Public Network spec propo
t; To: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> From: Endre Karlson **
> Sent by: openstack-bounces+gongysh=cn.ibm@lists.launchpad.net
> Date: 07/12/2012 07:53PM
> Subject: [Openstack] Fwd: [Quantum] Public Network spec proposal
>
>
> Why not just --public or not ? Why do you need -
If we just use one flag, it can represent just two values True or False. If we want to represent three values True, False or not specified, we have to use --public True or --public False or nothing at all.So it is a three-values logic.-openstack-bounces+gongysh=cn.ibm@lists.launchpad.net wr
Why not just --public or not ? Why do you need --public True ? That just
adds confusion...
Endre.
2012/7/12 Gary Kotton
> **
> Hi,
> 1. Is this also applicable to the agents? Say for example a user wants to
> ensure that a public network is attached to network interface em1 and the
> private n
Re-including openstack ML in the loop, as several Quantum contributors
might not yet be registered to openstack-dev.
Apologies for spamming.
Salvatore
-- Forwarded message --
From: Yong Sheng Gong
Date: 11 July 2012 19:10
Subject: Re: [Openstack] [Quantum] Public Network spec pr
12 matches
Mail list logo
