openstack
/
neutron-specs
Code Issues Proposed changes

Update patch set 6 

Patch Set 6:

(3 comments)

Patch-set: 6
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 11604 \u003c11604@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543\u003e","operation":"REMOVE","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_11604\u003e replied on the change"}
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 16688 \u003c16688@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543\u003e","operation":"ADD","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_11604\u003e replied on the change"}
This commit is contained in:
Gerrit User 11604 2022-11-04 12:19:23 +00:00 committed by Gerrit Code Review
parent 1bd7c12da3
commit f651e3a366
2 changed files with 60 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

24
09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d
View File

@ -71,6 +71,30 @@
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "a2360ca4_ee52eabc",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 50,
"author": {
"id": 11604
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-04T12:19:23Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "so am i correct in understandign that if i want to use br0 for physnet0 and tunneled traffic you are suggesting setting \n\n```\n[ml2]\ntunnelled_network_rp_name\u003dbr0\n\n[ovs]\nbridge_mappings \u003d physnet0:br0\nresource_provider_bandwidths \u003d br0:EGRESS:INGRESS\n```\n\nif so that is baseically the same as i was suggesting above \n\ntunnel_bandwidth_provider is basically the same as your tunnelled_network_rp_name\n\n\nif my example above will work and allow physnet0 and the tunneled netowks to share a singel rp then this should be viable\n\ncan we add this exampel explcitly to ensure that we test this and not just the usecase where the tunnels use a spereate independent inventory.",
"parentUuid": "cf72051d_f18608c1",
"range": {
"startLine": 50,
"startChar": 62,
"endLine": 50,
"endChar": 74
},
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {

36
c9a9703febc0f67e23536af42331483c85fb137e
View File

@ -231,6 +231,24 @@
"revId": "c9a9703febc0f67e23536af42331483c85fb137e",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "3c419499_1f27dad1",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 4
},
"lineNbr": 46,
"author": {
"id": 11604
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-04T12:19:23Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "\"\" This spec is adding the support for tunnelled networks only, as an independent HW resource. \"\"\n\nif that is the scope fo the spec i dont think we shoudl proceed with the spec.\n\ni agree that the admin need to define the bandwith via the config options but we need to ensure they can model either having a indepetnt pool of bandwith for tunnles or a shared pool with one of the existing physnets.",
"parentUuid": "46aa6240_37981679",
"revId": "c9a9703febc0f67e23536af42331483c85fb137e",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
@ -456,6 +474,24 @@
"revId": "c9a9703febc0f67e23536af42331483c85fb137e",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "bb1f04c6_6887b7f7",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 4
},
"lineNbr": 93,
"author": {
"id": 11604
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-04T12:19:23Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "you can just use both traits for a time or indefinetly but standard traits in os-traits would be better long term.\n\nits not a blocker for this spec if we use custom_ but it would be better to standarise them if we can",
"parentUuid": "b57a58f0_8eeeca2f",
"revId": "c9a9703febc0f67e23536af42331483c85fb137e",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {