Open Stack

Hi Wu,

As I've also written in a comment at
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/130732/6, it appears that
VIF_TYPE_VHOSTUSER is already covered by the approved spec at
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96138/.

Given that, is there any reason to consider adding VIF_TYPE_VHOSTUSER
into the VIF_TYPE_TAP spec as well?

Thanks,
        Neil


Wuhongning <wuhongning at huawei.com> writes:

> Hi Neil,
>
> @Neil, could you please also add VIF_TYPE_VHOSTUSER in your spec (as I
> commented on it)? There has been active VHOSTUSER discuss in JUNO nova
> BP, and it's the same usefulness as VIF_TYPE_TAP.
>
> Best Regards
> Wu
> ________________________________________
> From: Neil Jerram [Neil.Jerram at metaswitch.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2014 10:51 AM
> To: Kevin Benton
> Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] Boundary between Nova and  Neutron involvement in network setup?
>
> Kevin Benton <blak111 at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I see the difference now.
>> The main concern I see with the NOOP type is that creating the virtual
>> interface could require different logic for certain hypervisors. In
>> that case Neutron would now have to know things about nova and to me
>> it seems like that's slightly too far the other direction.
>
> Many thanks, Kevin.  I see this now too, as I've just written more fully
> in my response to Ian.
>
> Based on your and others' insight, I've revised and reuploaded my
> VIF_TYPE_TAP spec, and hope it's a lot clearer now.
>
> Regards,
>      Neil
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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