Open Stack

Bob and Kyle,

Thanks for your review.
We looked at this option and it seems it might meet our needs. Here is what
we intend to do:

Let's say we have three racks (each rack supports three VLANs - 100, 200
and 300).
We create the following config file for the neutron server




tenant_network_type = vlan
network_vlan_ranges = physnet1:100:300
network_vlan_ranges = phynet2:100:300
network_vlan_ranges = phynet3:100:300
integration_bridge = br-int
bridge_mappings = physnet1:br-eth1, physnet2:br-eth1, physnet3:br-eth1
Is this what you meant?

Vinay


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Robert Kukura <rkukura at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 02/09/2014 12:56 PM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 2014, at 5:24 PM, Vinay Bannai <vbannai at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Folks,
> >>
> >> We are running into a situation where we are not able to create
> multiple provider networks with the same VLAN id. We would like to propose
> a solution to remove this restriction through a configuration option. This
> approach would not conflict with the present behavior where it is not
> possible to create multiple provider networks with the same VLAN id.
> >>
> >> The changes should be minimal and would like to propose it for the next
> summit. The use case for this need is documented in the blueprint
> specification.
> >> Any feedback or comments are welcome.
> >>
> >>
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/duplicate-providernet-vlans
> >>
> > Hi Vinay:
> >
> > This problem seems straightforward enough, though currently you are right
> > in that we don't allow multiple Neutron networks to have the same
> segmentation
> > ID. I've added myself as approver for this BP and look forward to further
> > discussions of this before and during the upcoming Summit!
>
> Multiple networks with network_type of 'vlan' are already allowed to
> have the same segmentation ID with the ml2, openvswitch, or linuxbridge
> plugins - the networks just need to have different physical_network
> names. If they have the same network_type, physical_network, and
> segmentation_id, they are the same network. What else would distinguish
> them from each other?
>
> Could your use case be addressed by simply using different
> physical_network names for each rack? This would provide independent
> spaces of segmentation_ids for each.
>
> -Bob
>
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Kyle
> >
> >> Thanks
> >> --
> >> Vinay Bannai
> >> Email: vbannai at gmail.com
> >> Google Voice: 415 938 7576
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 
Vinay Bannai
Email: vbannai at gmail.com
Google Voice: 415 938 7576
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140210/fed8d20b/attachment.html>