[Openstack-operators] [neutron] Routing to tenant networks

Mike Spreitzer mspreitz at us.ibm.com
Thu Jan 14 16:59:20 UTC 2016

> From: Carl Baldwin <carl at ecbaldwin.net>
> To: Dan Sneddon <dsneddon at redhat.com>
> Cc: Matt Kassawara <mkassawara at gmail.com>, Mike Spreitzer/Watson/
> IBM at IBMUS, "openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org" <openstack-
> operators at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: 01/14/2016 10:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [neutron] Routing to tenant networks
> I'd discourage the use of for any tenant networks.
> Quoted the RFC [1]:  "This address block will be called the "Shared
> Address Space" and will be used to number the interfaces that connect
> CGN devices to Customer Premises Equipment (CPE)." and "In particular,
> Shared Address Space can only be used in Service Provider networks or
> on routing equipment that is able to do address translation across
> router interfaces when the addresses are identical on two different
> interfaces."  It isn't spelled out clearly, but this hints at only
> using these addresses on infrastructure devices used in service
> providers' networks.  The closest this would get to a customer is
> assigning the router at the customer's edge an address from this range
> (like your home router's external address).  These devices pass
> packets and use the shared address space to communicate with other
> devices in the service provider's network but these addresses are
> never seen by the end user in the packets that reach their devices.

I think OpenStack's position should be that it is the operator's choice 
how to assign/use addresses.  And OpenStack's advice to the operators 
should be to follow the RFC (duh!).


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20160114/70a5c912/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list