Hi,
neither thomas nor I are available to chair today's bgpvpn meeting.
We don't have a lot of topics on today's agenda, so let's cancel today's
meeting.
See you next week.
Mathieu
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not
Hi,
sorry for the late reply, but if you want to attach a neutron network or a
neutron router to an existing MPLS based BGP L3 VPN, you can use the BGPVPN
project [1], with its API and one of it's backend, bagpipe [2] being its
opensource and reference implementation.
Those projects have dedicate
Hi cathy,
at net-bgpvpn, we're very interested in this effort. Please, keep us in the
loop.
Mathieu
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Haim Daniel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd +1 Vikram's comment on neutron-classifier , RFE [1] contains the
> original thread about that topic.
>
>
> [1] https://bugs.laun
Hi,
tmorin and myself won't be available for the next two meetings.
The next weekly meeting for the networking-bgpvpn project will be on
tuesday, the 5th of january, at 15:00 UTC on #openstack-meeting-alt.
Thanks
Mathieu
__
Hi,
I'm also interested in live-migration in the context of two bugs in l2pop :
https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1483601
https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1443421
Mathieu
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Oleg Bondarev
wrote:
> I think it might be a bit early to start a cross-proj
Hi all,
thanks for the explanation.
Can you also explain how does neutron team use blueprints? how it overlaps
with RFE bugs?
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 12:18:29PM EST, Carl Baldwin wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Henry Gessau w
Thanks ihar!
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka
wrote:
> UPD: now that we have some understanding what’s needed from l2 agent
> extension mechanism to cater for interested subprojects (and now that we
> see that probably the agent in focus right now is OVS only), we may move to
> R
be changed to conditional RPC support based on
> drivers requirements, follow what Salvatore suggested makes perfect sense.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Salvatore Orlando <
> salv.orla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> my 0.02€ on the matter inline.
>>
stency between usage of each
service plugins is a valid point and might be enough to not do it and
instead limiting the bgpvpn service plugin to be able to only load one
service driver for the moment. Which is also inconsistent with some other
service plugins, but probably less.
thanks brandon.
Mat
Adding the related subject :)
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Mathieu Rohon
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The current bgpvpn implementation is using the service type framework,
> with a service plugin and one or more service providers.
>
> After registering the bug [1], I wonder if w
Hi all,
The current bgpvpn implementation is using the service type framework, with
a service plugin and one or more service providers.
After registering the bug [1], I wonder if we would rather use a service
plugin per implementation type (bagpipe, ODL, OpenContrail, Nuage...) which
handles API
Hi,
there are still some differences in terms of features supported by the two
implementations. Those I am aware of are :
-LB can support VLAN transparent networks as mentionned in [2];
-OVS supports MPLS tagging, needed by the bagpipe driver of the bgpvpn
project;
-when arp responder is activated
have been
> coming up.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul Michali (pc_m)
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:54 AM Mathieu Rohon
> wrote:
>
>> Hi paul,
>>
>> this is also something that we would like to introduce for BGP/MPLS VPNs
>> [2].
>>
>> We choose t
Hi paul,
this is also something that we would like to introduce for BGP/MPLS VPNs
[2].
We choose to allow tenants to attach existing networks ( it might evolve to
subnets) to bgpvpn-connection objects, by updating the bgpvpn-connection
object, which is the equivalent of the ipsec-site-connection
Hi,
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Salvatore Orlando
wrote:
> I think Paul is correctly scoping this discussion in terms of APIs and
> management layer.
> For instance, it is true that dynamic routing support, and BGP support
> might be a prerequisite for BGP VPNs, but it should be possible to
Hi loy, thanks for this dedicated thread.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:06 AM, loy wolfe wrote:
>
>> It's already away from the original thread, so I start this new one,
>> also with some extra tag because I think it touch some corss-project
>>
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:28 AM, henry hly wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Armando M. wrote:
> >>
> >> Could you please also pay some attention on Cons of this ultimate
> >> splitting Kyle? I'm afraid it would hurt the user experiences.
> >>
> >> On the position of Dev, A naked Neutr
Hi,
It will overlap with the Telco Working group weekly meeting [1]. It's too
bad, since Qos is a big interest for Telco Cloud Operator!
Mathieu
[1]https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TelcoWorkingGroup#Meetings
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <
mangel...@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi Matt,
Jaume did an awesome work at proposing and implementing a framework for
announcing public IP with a BGP speaker [1].
Unfortunately, the spec hasn't been merged in kilo. Hope it will be
resubmitted in L.
Your proposal seems to be a mix of Jaume proposal and HA router design?
We also play
hi henry,
thanks for this interesting idea. It would be interesting to think about
how external gateway could leverage the l2pop framework.
Currently l2pop sends its fdb messages once the status of the port is
modified. AFAIK, this status is only modified by agents which send
update_devce_up/down
Guo,
AFAIU, the guest will tag frames with VLAN, then the host won't remove this
tag ASA the underlying host uses an overlay encapsulation (VXLAN or GRE) to
encapsulate the entire frame, including the VLAN submitted by the guest.
This will be only compatible with LinuxBridge running on the host, s
> mulitcast address, for linuxbridge vxlan.
>
>
> Or is multicasting prohibited by l2_pop driver and the vxlan_group
> attribute is not applicable in this case?
>
>
>
> --
> Andreas
> (irc: scheuran)
>
>
> On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 14:49 +0100, Mathieu Rohon w
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Salvatore Orlando
wrote:
>
>
> On 23 March 2015 at 14:49, Mathieu Rohon wrote:
>
>> Hi romil,
>>
>> I think the main purpose of this DB field is to maintain the
>> compatibility in dataplane between OVS and LinuxBridge whic
Hi romil,
I think the main purpose of this DB field is to maintain the compatibility
in dataplane between OVS and LinuxBridge which, by default, don't use the
same UDP port for VXLAN.
It might be useful for a cloud admin which wants to run some nodes with LB
and some others with OVS.
I feel like
Hi slawek,
may be you're hitting this l2pop bug :
https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1372438
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Sławek Kapłoński
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Dnia niedziela, 15 marca 2015 17:45:05 Salvatore Orlando pisze:
> > On 14 March 2015 at 11:19, Sławek Kapłoński wrote:
> > >
Hi,
I'm fine with C) and 1600 UTC would be more adapted for EU time Zone :)
However, I Agree that neutron-vpnaas meetings was mainly focus on
maintaining the current IPSec implementation, by managing the slip out,
adding StrongSwan support and adding functional tests.
Maybe we will get a broader
Hi henry,
It looks great and quite simple thanks to the work done by the ofagent team.
This kind of work might be used also for DVR which now support VLAN
networks [3].
I have some concerns about the patch submitted in [1], so let's review!
[3]https://review.openstack.org/#/c/129884/
On Wed, F
Hi,
you can develop you own service plugin which extends the current Neutron
API, and transforms Neutron API call in ODL NB API call.
You can take example from the GBP service plugin to understand how to route
Neutron API call to an independent service plugin.
regards,
Mathieu
On Thu, Jan 29,
FYI,
numan created a bug [1] about being able to run functional test job in
neutron-vpnaas CI
I've proposed a patch [2] which simply add neutron-dsvm-functional job in
check and gate queue of neutron-vpnaas.
Unfortunately, as discussed with marun on IRC, this won't be enough, since
this job depen
hi danny,
if you're using neutron, you can use the option :
NEUTRON_CREATE_INITIAL_NETWORKS=False
in your local.conf.
This way no router or network are created. You have to create it manually,
and of course you can do it once every agent is up is Neutron.
Mathieu
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 3:46 PM
Hi Mike,
after reviewing your latest patch [1], I think that a possible solution
could be to add a new entry in fdb RPC message.
This entry would specify whether the port is multi-bound or not.
The new fdb message would look like this :
{net_id:
{port:
{agent_ip:
{mac, ip, *multi-boun
Thanks Paul,
I'll be there!
Mathieu
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Paul Michali (pcm) wrote:
> Since we took a break for two weeks and the meeting channel has changed, I
> figured I send a reminder.
>
> Please update the page for any agenda items you may have,
>
> Regards,
>
>
> PCM (Paul Mich
Mike,
I'm not even sure that your solution works without being able to bind
a router HA port to several hosts.
What's happening currently is that you :
1.create the router on two l3agent.
2. those l3agent trigger the sync_router() on the l3plugin.
3. l3plugin.sync_routers() will trigger l2plugin.
Hi vivek,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Narasimhan, Vivekanandan
wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Few clarifications inline [Vivek]
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kolesnik [mailto:mkole...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:58 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not
Hi mike,
thanks for working on this bug :
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Gary Kotton wrote:
>
>
> On 12/18/14, 2:06 PM, "Mike Kolesnik" wrote:
>
>>Hi Neutron community members.
>>
>>I wanted to query the community about a proposal of how to fix HA routers
>>not
>>working with L2Population (bu
Hi Ryan,
We have been working on similar Use cases to announce /32 with the
Bagpipe BGPSpeaker that supports EVPN.
Please have a look at use case B in [1][2].
Note also that the L2population Mechanism driver for ML2, that is
compatible with OVS, Linuxbridge and ryu ofagent, is inspired by EVPN,
an
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Sumit Naiksatam
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Adam Young wrote:
>> On 12/03/2014 06:24 PM, Sukhdev Kapur wrote:
>>
>> Congratulations Henry and Kevin. It has always been pleasure working with
>> you guys.
>>
>>
>> If I may express my opinion, Bob's c
Hi all,
It seems that a process with a survey for neutron core
election/removal was about to take place [1]. Has it been applied for
this proposal?
This proposal has been hardly discussed during neutron meetings
[2][3]. Many cores agree that the number of reviews shouldn't be the
only metrics. And
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Ian Wells wrote:
> On 1 December 2014 at 04:43, Mathieu Rohon wrote:
>>
>> This is not entirely true, as soon as a reference implementation,
>> based on existing Neutron components (L2agent/L3agent...) can exist.
>
>
> The speci
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Ian Wells wrote:
> On 27 November 2014 at 12:11, Mohammad Hanif wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Recently, as part of the L2 gateway thread, there was some discussion on
>> BGP/MPLS/Edge VPN and how to bridge any overlay networks to the neutron
>> network. Just to
Hi Vikram,
thanks to latest ovs capabilities, and to an upstreamed compatible
BGPSpeaker, we proposed to implement MPLS VPN interconnection directly
in Neutron [1]
The Tacker project aims at managing VNF, and its first use case is
about implementing a RouterAAS. Maybe you can have a look at that [
Hi,
you can still add your own service plugin, as a mixin of
L3RouterPlugin (have a look at brocade's code).
AFAIU service framework would manage the coexistence several
implementation of a single service plugin.
This is currently not prioritized by neutron. This kind of work might
restart in the
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Georgy Okrokvertskhov
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In Murano we did couple projects related to networking orchestration. As NFV
Can you tell us more about those projects? Does it include
mutli-datacenter use cases?
> is a quite broad term I can say that Murano approach
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:59 AM, henry hly wrote:
> Hi Armando,
>
> Indeed agent-less solution like external controller is very
> interesting, and in some certain cases it has advantage over agent
> solution, e.g. software installation is prohibited on Compute Node.
>
> However, Neutron Agent has
gt;>> Hello all,
>>> Also, what about Kevin's https://review.openstack.org/#/c/87825/? One of
>>> its use cases is exactly the L2 gateway. These proposals could probably be
>>> inserted in a more generic work for moving existing datacenter L2 resources
>>>
Hi,
As far as I understood last friday afternoon dicussions during the
design summit, this use case is in the scope of another umbrella spec
which would define external connectivity for neutron networks. Details
of those connectivity would be defined through service plugin API.
Ian do you plan to
Hi,
Thanks Jaume, it make sense since those use cases need l3-agent refectoring.
I've updated the BGPVPN etherpad [1] with materials used during
today's techtalk.
I hope this will help everyone to better uderstand our use cases.
[1]https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/bgpvpn
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at
Hi,
thanks jaume for planning this bof.
the bgpvpn spec [2] has been initiated by nati ueno. I hope nati will
attend this bof too.
our proposal is to try to implement this spec with existing Neutron
components [4].
Me and thomas will also have a tech talk about BGPVPN on tuesday, 1:15 PM. [5]
[4
Hi,
+1
thanks
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> I believe "Déjà vu" is an appropriate term here. :-)
>
> Count me in.
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Collins, Sean
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Like Atlanta, I will be at the summit. If there is interest, I can
>> schedule
Hi,
really interesting, thanks corry.
during l3 meeting we spoke about planning a POD session around bgp use cases.
at least 2 spec have bgp use cases :
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125401/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/93329/
It would be interesting that you join this POD, to share your
Hi wei,
the agent will be re-worked with modular l2 agent [1]
your proposal could be handle during this work.
[1]https://review.openstack.org/#/c/106189/
Mathieu
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Damon Wang wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We have suffered a long down time when we upgrade our public cloud'
t; Keshava
>
> From: Damon Wang [mailto:damon.dev...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 12:42 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] BGPVPN implementation discussions
>
>
>
> Good news, +1
>
>
Hi all,
as discussed during today's l3-meeting, we keep on working on BGPVPN
service plugin implementation [1].
MPLS encapsulation is now supported in OVS [2], so we would like to
summit a design to leverage OVS capabilities. A first design proposal,
based on l3agent, can be found here :
https://
Hi,
if you use a VLAN type driver, TOR switches should be configured in
trunk mode to allow VLAN specified in vlan_type section of
ml2_conf.ini.
vlan id range is defined in this section. Any tenant network will use
an id from this range, and it is totally independent from tenant id.
Some mechanism
Hi,
please tell us about the extension you want to write, it would really help.
In ML2, you now have the ability to easily add extensions thanks to this work :
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/extensions-in-ml2
Mathieu
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Damon Wang wrote:
> Hi Kapłoń
hi,
to switch to nova firewall management, you also have to set
enable_security_group = False in ml2_conf.ini.
Nova will have to manage security_groups by setting security_group_api
= nova in nova.conf.
by doing this you will loose some capabilities of neutron
(allowed_address_pair for example).
he SR-IOV related use case.
> It seems that all required changes can be encapsulated in the L2 OVS agent,
> since it requires to add fdb mac registration on adapted interface.
> What was your idea related to extension manager in ML2?
>
> Thanks,
> Irena
>
> -----Original M
l2pop is about l2 networks optimization with tunnel creation and arp
repsonder population (so this is
not only a overlays network optimization. For example ofagent now use
l2pop info for flat and vlan optimization [1]),
This optimization is orthogonal to several agent based mechanism
driver (lb, ov
you probably should consider using the future extension manager in ML2 :
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89211/
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Irena Berezovsky wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
> We can definitely set some time to discuss this.
> I am usually available from 5 to 14:00 UTC.
> Let's follow
nline.
>
> Salvatore
>
> On 20 August 2014 11:31, Mathieu Rohon wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Salvatore Orlando
>> wrote:
>> > In the current approach QoS support is being "hardwired" into ML2.
>> >
>&g
Hi
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
> In the current approach QoS support is being "hardwired" into ML2.
>
> Maybe this is not the best way of doing that, as perhaps it will end up
> requiring every mech driver which enforces VIF configuration should support
> it.
> I se
Hi,
I would like to add that it would be harder for the community to help
maintaining drivers.
such a work [1] wouldn't have occured with an out of tree ODL driver.
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96459/
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Robert Kukura wrote:
> One thing to keep in mind is t
file a blueprint to
> propose the changes.
great, I would be pleased to review this BP.
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Mathieu Rohon
> wrote:
>> Hi Zang,
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Zang MingJie wrote:
>>> Hi, all:
>>>
>>> Whil
Hi Zang,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Zang MingJie wrote:
> Hi, all:
>
> While resolving ovs restart rebuild br-tun flows[1], we have found
> several l2pop problems:
>
> 1. L2pop is depending on agent_boot_time to decide whether send all
> port information or not, but the agent_boot_time is u
A simple usecase could be to have a compute node able start VM with
optimized net I/O or standard net I/O, depending on the network flavor
ordered for this VM.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Czesnowicz, Przemyslaw
wrote:
>
>
> Can you explain whats the use case for running both ovs and usersp
Hi, sorry for the late reply, I was out of office for 3 weeks.
I also love the idea of having a single thread in charge of writing
dataplane actions.
As Zang described, this thread would read events in a queue, which could be
populated by agent_drivers.
The main goal would be to avoid desynchroniz
hi henry,
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:17 AM, henry hly wrote:
> ML2 mechanism drivers are becoming another kind of "plugins". Although they
> can be loaded together, but can not work with each other.
>
> Today, there are more and more drivers, supporting all kinds of networking
> hardware and middl
Any thoughts on this?
>
> Mohammad
>
> [3] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/modular-l2-agent-outline
>
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Mathieu Rohon ---05/30/2014 06:25:29
> AM---Hi all, Modular agent seems to have to choose between two t]Mathieu
> Rohon ---05/30
Hi all,
Modular agent seems to have to choose between two type of architecture [1].
As I understood during the last ML2 meeting [2], Extension driver
seems to be the most reasonnable choice.
But I think that those two approaches are complementory : Extension
drivers will deal with RPC callbacks f
Hi,
I was about mentionning ExaBGP too! can we also consider using those
BGP speakers for BGPVPN implementation [1].
This would be consistent to have the same BGP speaker used for every
BGP needs inside Neutron.
[1]https://review.openstack.org/#/c/93329/
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Jaume
nks,
>
> Mohammad
>
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Mathieu Rohon ---05/07/2014 10:25:58
> AM---Hi ML2er and others, I'm considering discussions around ML2]Mathieu
> Rohon ---05/07/2014 10:25:58 AM---Hi ML2er and others, I'm considering
> discussions around M
Hi ML2er and others,
I'm considering discussions around ML2 for the summit. Unfortunatly I
won't attend the summit, so I'll try to participate through the
mailing list and etherpads.
I'm especially interested in extension support by Mechanism Driver[1]
and Modular agent[2]. During the Juno cycle
Hi ML2er and others,
I'm considering discussions around ML2 for the summit. Unfortunatly I
won't attend the summit, so I'll try to participate through the
mailing list and etherpads.
I'm especially interested in extension support by Mechanism Driver[1]
and Modular agent[2]. During the Juno cycle
/
>
> Best regards
> Slawek Kaplonski
> sla...@kaplonski.pl
>
> Dnia wtorek, 6 maja 2014 10:35:05 Mathieu Rohon pisze:
>> Hi slawek,
>>
>> As soon as you declare "l2population" in the MD section of the config
>> file, it will be loaded by ML2 plugi
Finland Oy, Urho Kekkosen katu 3 B, 00100 Helsinki, FINLAND
> www.cybercom.fi | www.cybercom.com
>
>
>
>
> On 06/05/14 11:17, "Mathieu Rohon" wrote:
>
>>Hi IIkka,
>>
>>this is a very interesting MD for ML2. Have you ever tried to use your
>>ML2
Hi slawek,
As soon as you declare "l2population" in the MD section of the config
file, it will be loaded by ML2 plugin. l2population MD will listen to
ML2 DB events and send RPC messages to ovs agent when needed.
l2population MD will not bind the port, ovs MD will.
By the way, you need to ad add
Hi IIkka,
this is a very interesting MD for ML2. Have you ever tried to use your
ML2 driver with VMWare drivers on the nova side, so that you could
manage your VM with nova, and its network with neutron.
Do you think it would be difficult to extend your driver to support
vxlan encapsulation?
Neut
Hi,
the more I think about your use case, the more I think you should
create a BP to have tenant network based on interfaces created with
VDP protocol.
I'm not a VDP specialist, but if it creates some vlan back interfaces,
you might match those physical interfaces with the
physical_interface_mapp
hi nader,
I don't think this parameter could be used in this case. As andre said
, tha original-network is usefull for update and delete commands. It
would led to misunderstandings if we use this param in other cases,
and particulary in create commands.
I'm still thinking that the result of super
Hi,
thanks for this very interesting use case!
May be you can still use VXLAN or GRE for tenant networks, to bypass
the 4k limit of vlans. then you would have to send packets to the vlan
tagged interface, with the tag assigned by the VDP protocol, and this
traffic would be encapsulated inside the
Hi edouard,
thanks for the information. I would love to see your patch getting
merged to have l2-population MD fully functional with an OVS based
deployment. Moreover, this patch has a minimal impact on neutron,
since the code is used only if l2-population MD is used in the ML2
plugin.
markmcclai
Hi nader,
The easiest way would be to register a new RPC callback in the current
ovs agent. This is what we have done for the l2-pop MD, with fdb_add
and fdb_remove callbacks.
However, it could become a mess if every MD adds it own callback
directly into the code of the agent. L2 agent should be a
Hi racha,
I don't think your topic has something to deal with Nader's topics.
Please, create another topic, it would be easier to follow.
FYI, robert kukura is currently refactoring the MD binding, please
have a look here : https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1276391. As
i understand, there wo
Hi
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Nader Lahouti wrote:
> 1) Does it mean an interim solution is to have our own plugin (and have all
> the changes in it) and declare it as core_plugin instead of Ml2Plugin?
I don't think you should create your own Plugin, having a MD is
simpler to develop and to
+1
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo wrote:
> +1 (Voting here to workaround my previous top-posting).
>
>
> On 03/09/2014 01:22 PM, Nir Yechiel wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I see it as one of the main current gaps and I believe that this is
>> something that can promote Neutron as stab
Please look at my last reply. Do you have several compute nodes? If
you have only one node, you won't have any vxlan port on br-tun.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Varadhan, Sowmini
wrote:
> On 2/26/14 5:47 AM, Mathieu Rohon wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> FYI setting the vxlan
;t seem to be a multi-node one, so you
will have only one vxlan endpoint, which hosts network node and
compute node. If this is right, it's normal that no vxlan tunnel is
created, since you don't have any other vxlan endpoint.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Mathieu Rohon wrote:
> H
Hi,
FYI setting the vxlan UDP doesn't work properly for the moment :
https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1241561
May be your kernel has the vxlan module already loaded, which bind the
udp port 8472. that a reason why the vxlan port can't be created by
ovs. Check your ovs-vswitchd.log
On Tue,
Hi,
you can get inspired by the L2-population MD, which call new functions
in the agents (like add_fdb_entries) through AMQP.
Does your work relate to an existing blueprint?
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Sławek Kapłoński wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Trinath, this presentation I saw before You send m
> if it's to late to merge this in icehouse but it might be worth considering
> if we find that it helps reduce gate failures.
>
> Best,
>
> Aaron
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Mathieu Rohon
> wrote:
>>
>> +1 for this feature which could po
+1 for this feature which could potentially resolve a race condition
that could occur after port-binding refactoring in ML2 [1].
in ML2, the port could be ACTIVE once a MD has bound the port. the
vif_type could then be known by nova, and nova could create the
network correctly thanks to vif_type an
Hi,
You can see in the review [1] that doude first proposed an ebtables
manager to implement the ARP responder for ovs. OVS 2.1 is now able to
manage an ARP responder based on flow [2], so he switches his
implementation to a flow based ARP responder (please, have a look at
patches history).
ebtabl
NICs as well.
>
> Please join the PCI pass-through meeting discussions to see that you do not
> do any redundant work or just follow-up on mailing list.
>
> BR,
> Irena
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mathieu Rohon [mailto:mathieu.ro...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Mo
Hi,
SRIOV is under implementation in nova and neutron. Did you have a look to :
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/PCI_passthrough_SRIOV_support
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/ml2-binding-profile
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/ml2-request-vnic-type
https://blueprints.l
Hi,
one other comment inline :
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Robert Kukura wrote:
> On 02/05/2014 09:10 AM, Henry Gessau wrote:
>> Bob, this is fantastic, I really appreciate all the detail. A couple of
>> questions ...
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 05, at 2:16 am, Robert Kukura wrote:
>>
>>> A couple of
Hi,
thanks for this great proposal
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Henry Gessau wrote:
> Bob, this is fantastic, I really appreciate all the detail. A couple of
> questions ...
>
> On Wed, Feb 05, at 2:16 am, Robert Kukura wrote:
>
>> A couple of interrelated issues with the ML2 plugin's port
t;> I agree with your thinking here Nachi. Leaving this as a global
>>> configuration makes the most sense.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Amir
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 16, 2014, at 11:42 AM, Nachi Ueno w
Hi,
your proposals make sense. Having the firewall driver configuring so
much things looks pretty stange.
Enabling security group should be a plugin/MD decision, not a driver decision.
For ML2, in a first implementation, having vif security based on
vif_type looks good too.
Once OVSfirewallDriver
Hi,
does anyone knows if the multi-node environnement is targeted by the
openstack-infra team?
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Anita Kuno wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 11:34 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
>> Given the Tempest Sprint in Montreal, I still think we should have this
>> meeting
>> on IRC.
> Sho
Hi,
This is something that we potentially could implement during the
implementation of the isolated-network bp [1]
Basically, on an isolated network, an ARP responder will respond to
ARP request. For an L2 network which is totally isolated, ARP
responder will only respond to arp-request of the gat
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
