Benjamin,
Feel free to reach out. If you are referring to my -2, that was just
provisional.
Before we can go ahead and see an improved scheduling capability for DHCP,
you guys need to resolve the conflict between the overlapping blueprints,
working together or giving up one in favor on the other.
Hi all,
I would definitely be glad to work on the subject as well.
However I am not sure to understand fully Armando last remark in our change.
I will try to discuss it with him on IRC.
Regards,
Benjamin GRASSART
[@@ THALES GROUP INTERNAL @@]
De : S M, Praveen Kumar [mailto:praveen-sm.ku...@h
Hi Vivek,
We are definitely interested in working on these blueprints collaboratively.
We have a working implementation for our blueprint and received few important
comments from Armando and addressing them currently.
Regards
Praveen.
From: Narasimhan, Vivekanandan
Sent: Thursday, November
+1
IMHO, it is enough for [1][3] to fix by issuing a bug report.
Thanks
Itsuro Oda
On Thu, 6 Nov 2014 17:20:57 +0100
ZZelle wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> iiuc,
>
> It seems [1][3] share exactly the same objective and implementation
> intention:
> - define an common abstract dhcp scheduler class
> -
Hi,
iiuc,
It seems [1][3] share exactly the same objective and implementation
intention:
- define an common abstract dhcp scheduler class
- define a dhcp LeastNetworkScheduler
[2] proposes to
- define a dhcp LeastVmScheduler (networks are scheduled on the dhcp agent
supporting the least vms (
At Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:39:25 +,
Narasimhan, Vivekanandan wrote:
>
> Hi Neutron Stackers,
>
>
>
> There is an interest among vendors to bring Least Networks scheduling for
> DHCP into Openstack Neutron.
>
>
>
> Currently there are the following blueprints lying there, all of them trying
Hi Neutron Stackers,
There is an interest among vendors to bring Least Networks scheduling for DHCP
into Openstack Neutron.
Currently there are the following blueprints lying there, all of them trying to
address this issue:
https://review.openstack.org/111210
https://review.openstack.org/
