On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
> I think the goal of subnet pools is to use these environments as "units of
> isolations" and ensure no overlapping CIDRs there. However, since there is
> no way to identify such environments at the API layers, API clients will
> need to b
I think that moving the discussion in whether a pool represents a tenant's
routable address space, or whether we need a new (another?!) API entity do
deal with it probably does not really fall within the scope of this thread.
I am pretty sure Carl will soon push a specification for address scope
ma
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 05:05:17PM -0700, Ian Wells wrote:
> On 22 March 2015 at 07:48, Jay Pipes wrote:
>
> > On 03/20/2015 05:16 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> >
> >> To clarify a bit, we obviously divide lots of things by tenant (quotas,
> >> network listing, etc). The difference is that we have no
On 3/22/15, 8:05 PM, "Ian Wells"
mailto:ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk>> wrote:
Seems to me that an address pool corresponds to a network area that you can
route across (because routing only works over a network with unique addresses
and that's what an address pool does for you). We have those areas
On 22 March 2015 at 07:48, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 03/20/2015 05:16 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
>
>> To clarify a bit, we obviously divide lots of things by tenant (quotas,
>> network listing, etc). The difference is that we have nothing right now
>> that has to be unique within a tenant. Are there obj
On 03/20/2015 05:16 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
To clarify a bit, we obviously divide lots of things by tenant (quotas,
network listing, etc). The difference is that we have nothing right now
that has to be unique within a tenant. Are there objects that are
uniquely scoped to a tenant in Nova/Glance/
To clarify a bit, we obviously divide lots of things by tenant (quotas,
network listing, etc). The difference is that we have nothing right now
that has to be unique within a tenant. Are there objects that are uniquely
scoped to a tenant in Nova/Glance/etc?
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Jay Pi
On 2015-03-20 13:37:49 -0600 (-0600), Carl Baldwin wrote:
> From what I've heard others say both in this thread and privately to
> me, there are already a lot of cases where a tenant will use the same
> address range to stamp out identical topologies. It occurred to me
> that we might even being d
On 03/20/2015 03:37 PM, Carl Baldwin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
This is a question purely out of curiousity. Why is Neutron averse to the
concept of using tenants as natural ways of dividing up the cloud -- which
at its core means "multi-tenant", on-demand computi
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> This is a question purely out of curiousity. Why is Neutron averse to the
> concept of using tenants as natural ways of dividing up the cloud -- which
> at its core means "multi-tenant", on-demand computing and networking?
>From what I've heard
On 03/11/2015 06:48 PM, John Belamaric wrote:
This has been settled and we're not moving forward with it for Kilo. I
agree tenants are an administrative concept, not a networking one so
using them for uniqueness doesn't really make sense.
In Liberty we are proposing a new grouping mechanism, as
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Ryan Moats wrote:
> While I'd personally like to see this be restricted (Carl's position), I
> know
> of at least one existence proof where management applications are doing
> precisely what Gabriel is suggesting - reusing the same address range to
> minimize the
ack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPAM] Uniqueness of subnets within a
tenant
My concern is that we are introducing new objects in Neutron that are scoped to
a tenant and we don't have anything else like that right now. For example, I
can create 100 3-tier topologies (
My concern is that we are introducing new objects in Neutron that are
scoped to a tenant and we don't have anything else like that right now. For
example, I can create 100 3-tier topologies (router + 3 subnets/networks)
with duplicated names, CIDRs, etc between all of them and it doesn't matter
if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/2015 06:34 PM, Gabriel Bezerra wrote:
> Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
>> Neutron currently does not enforce the uniqueness, or
>> non-overlap, of subnet cidrs within the address scope for a
>> single tenant. For example, if a te
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:54 PM, John Belamaric wrote:
> I was proposing that the reference driver not support it either, and we
> only handle that use case via the non-pluggable implementation in Kilo,
> waiting until Liberty to handle it in the pluggable implementation.
> However, I don't think
On 3/12/15, 2:33 AM, "Carl Baldwin" wrote:
>John,
>
>I think our proposals fit together nicely. This thread is about
>allowing overlap within a pool. I think it is fine for an external
>IPAM driver to disallow such overlap for now. However, the reference
>implementation must support it for
John,
I think our proposals fit together nicely. This thread is about
allowing overlap within a pool. I think it is fine for an external
IPAM driver to disallow such overlap for now. However, the reference
implementation must support it for backward compatibility and so my
proposal will account
On 3/12/15, 12:46 AM, "Carl Baldwin" wrote:
>When talking with external IPAM to get a subnet, Neutron will pass
>both the cidr as the primary identifier and the subnet_id as an
>alternate identifier. External systems that do not allow overlap can
>
Recall that IPAM driver instances are associa
Here is a compromise option. The pluggable IPAM will be optionally enabled
in Kilo. We could introduce the restriction, but only when pluggable IPAM
is enabled. Support for having a tenant with overlapping IP space, along
with pluggable IPAM would wait until Liberty, when we can fully implement
the
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Gabriel Bezerra
wrote:
> Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
> I'd vote for allowing against such restriction, but throwing an error in
> case of creating a router between the subnets.
>
> I can imagine a tenant running multiple instances of an application
Gabriel Bezerra wrote on 03/10/2015 12:34:30 PM:
>
> Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
> > Neutron currently does not enforce the uniqueness, or non-overlap, of
> > subnet cidrs within the address scope for a single tenant. For
> > example, if a tenant chooses to use 10.0.0.0/24 on m
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Gabriel Bezerra
wrote:
> Em 10.03.2015 14:34, Gabriel Bezerra escreveu:
>
> Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
>> Neutron currently does not enforce the uniqueness, or non-overlap, of
>> subnet cidrs within the address scope for a single tenant. For
>>
Em 10.03.2015 14:34, Gabriel Bezerra escreveu:
Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
Neutron currently does not enforce the uniqueness, or non-overlap, of
subnet cidrs within the address scope for a single tenant. For
example, if a tenant chooses to use 10.0.0.0/24 on more than one
subnet,
Em 10.03.2015 14:24, Carl Baldwin escreveu:
Neutron currently does not enforce the uniqueness, or non-overlap, of
subnet cidrs within the address scope for a single tenant. For
example, if a tenant chooses to use 10.0.0.0/24 on more than one
subnet, he or she is free to do so. Problems will ari
Neutron currently does not enforce the uniqueness, or non-overlap, of
subnet cidrs within the address scope for a single tenant. For
example, if a tenant chooses to use 10.0.0.0/24 on more than one
subnet, he or she is free to do so. Problems will arise when trying
to connect a router between the
26 matches
Mail list logo
