[openstack-dev] [fuel] NodeGroups vs network-templates and static routes

Andrew Woodward xarses at gmail.com
Mon Jul 20 20:37:22 UTC 2015

Ya, that makes sense now that you mention it. We will still need node
groups to act as partitioning for the rack values

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:44 AM Sergey Vasilenko <svasilenko at mirantis.com>

> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Andrew Woodward <xarses at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Regardless of computing all the routes, we need to compute same role, but
>> multi-segement routes. In this case I see that nodegroups becomes
>> redundant. It's only value is that it may be a simpler interface then
>> templates but it imposes the old network topology which I could see people
>> wanting to get away from.
> I do not agree with unnecessary node groups.
> Yes, move route calculation is a good idea and I think we should implement
> it.
> But removing node groups... When we will implement multi-rack feature we
> will need some abstraction for store rack-specific attributes. Node groups
> are seems appropriate for this role.
> /sv
>  __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Andrew Woodward


Fuel Community Ambassador

Ceph Community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150720/1c783e03/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list