> From: Mike Spreitzer/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
>
> > From: Jacob Godin
> >
> > Ah, gotcha. So you're not using overlapping subnets then.
> >
> > Unfortunately that hack wouldn't work in our environment, but
> > definitely something that others might consider using.
>
> Right, the solution I am us
> From: Jacob Godin
> To: Mike Spreitzer/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc: Daniel Comnea , OpenStack Operators
>
> Date: 04/15/2015 08:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [Neutron] Floating IPs / Router
Gateways
>
> Ah, gotcha. So you're not using overlapping subnets
Jacob,
I don't have your original email from which to reply. So, hopefully
this finds you just as well. The bad news is that I don't have an
immediate answer to address this. However, I thought it was worth
mentioning where the future may lead.
I have been thinking about the scenario that you
ng.
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Mike Spreitzer
> wrote:
>
>> > From: Daniel Comnea
>> > To: Jacob Godin
>> > Cc: Mike Spreitzer/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, OpenStack Operators > > operat...@lists.openstack.org>
>> > Date: 04/15/2015 0
ob Godin
> > Cc: Mike Spreitzer/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, OpenStack Operators > operat...@lists.openstack.org>
> > Date: 04/15/2015 02:34 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [Neutron] Floating IPs / Router
> Gateways
> > Sent by: daniel.com...@gmail.com
> >
>
> From: Daniel Comnea
> To: Jacob Godin
> Cc: Mike Spreitzer/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, OpenStack Operators operat...@lists.openstack.org>
> Date: 04/15/2015 02:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [Neutron] Floating IPs / Router
Gateways
> Sent by: daniel.com...@gmail.com
Mike, pls share the solution, some are interested even if is a hack as long
as it gets the job done.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Jacob Godin wrote:
> Hey Mike,
>
> Would you send along your solution off-list? I'm curious, and I won't
> judge :)
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Mike S
Hey Mike,
Would you send along your solution off-list? I'm curious, and I won't judge
:)
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Mike Spreitzer wrote:
> Jacob Godin wrote on 04/14/2015 05:12:48 PM:
>
> > Absolutely. We're trying to reduce our public IPv4 usage, so having
> > one per tenant network (n
Jacob Godin wrote on 04/14/2015 05:12:48 PM:
> Absolutely. We're trying to reduce our public IPv4 usage, so having
> one per tenant network (not even including floating IPs) is a drain.
I am having exactly the same issue. I am currently solving it with a
different hack that nobody likes, I wi
Absolutely. We're trying to reduce our public IPv4 usage, so having one per
tenant network (not even including floating IPs) is a drain.
Instead of having: instance -> (gateway IP) virtual router NAT (public IP)
-> (public gateway) router
We want to have: instance -> (gateway IP) virtual router NA
Thanks Kevin. That might work in some instances, however our tenants have
the ability to create their own routers and allocate their gateway. I
suppose we could hack some code in to restrict what networks are usable for
routers vs floating IPs.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
Probably not in the way you want.
You can have two subnets on the external network. Then you would set the
allocation pool to be nothing for the subnet that you want the router
interfaces to be attached to to make sure floating IPs aren't allocated
from it. Then whenever you attach a router interf
- Original Message -
> Hi folks,
>
> Looking for a bit of advice on how to accomplish something with Neutron. Our
> setup uses OVS+GRE with isolated tenant networks. Currently, we have one
> large network servicing our Floating IPs as well as our external router
> interfaces.
>
> What we'
Hi folks,
Looking for a bit of advice on how to accomplish something with Neutron.
Our setup uses OVS+GRE with isolated tenant networks. Currently, we have
one large network servicing our Floating IPs as well as our external router
interfaces.
What we're looking to do is actually have two distinc
14 matches
Mail list logo
