[Openstack-operators] [Neutron] Floating IPs / Router Gateways
jacobgodin at gmail.com
Tue Apr 14 21:12:48 UTC 2015
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 NAT (private IP)
-> (private gateway) router NAT
We have lots of networks, so this would have a huge impact on our IP usage.
Also, in this case, floating IP addresses would still work the same way
that they do now.\
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Assaf Muller <amuller at redhat.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Hi folks,
> > Looking for a bit of advice on how to accomplish something with Neutron.
> > 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 distinct networks handle
> > tasks. One for FIPs and another for routers.
> > Is this possible?
> Every router is allocated an IP address on the same network as the
> floating IPs it serves.
> This is unavoidable at this time. I don't see how you could work around
> this and separate
> the two. Can you expand on what you're trying to accomplish and why?
> There's work going
> on in this area planned for Liberty and it would be interesting to hear
> your use case.
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
> > OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-operators