should be a way to specify space binding for maas "unconfigured" (layer-2) interface
Bug #1659376 reported by
Larry Michel
This bug affects 6 people
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Canonical Juju |
Triaged
|
Low
|
Unassigned | ||
OpenStack Neutron Gateway Charm |
Opinion
|
Wishlist
|
Unassigned | ||
neutron-gateway (Juju Charms Collection) |
Invalid
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
Some network charms have requirements that a particular interface be connected to a specific network and that the interface be left unconfigured.
When using "data" binding for the neutron-gateway charm and deploying bundle with Juju 2.1-beta4-
Also refer to bug 1659360.
tags: | added: network |
Changed in juju: | |
status: | New → Triaged |
importance: | Undecided → High |
milestone: | none → 2.2.0 |
Changed in neutron-gateway (Juju Charms Collection): | |
status: | New → Invalid |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.2-beta1 → 2.2-beta2 |
tags: | added: cdo-qa-blocker |
tags: | added: uosci |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.2-beta2 → 2.2-beta3 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | none → 2.3-alpha1 |
summary: |
- neutron-gateway/0 install failure - should be a way to specify space - binding for maas "unconfigured" interface + should be a way to specify space binding for maas "unconfigured" + interface |
tags: | added: binding layer-2 |
summary: |
should be a way to specify space binding for maas "unconfigured" - interface + (layer-2) interface |
tags: | added: binding layer-2 |
Changed in charm-neutron-gateway: | |
status: | New → Triaged |
importance: | Undecided → Wishlist |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.3-beta1 → 2.3-beta2 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.3-beta2 → none |
tags: | added: cpe-onsite |
To post a comment you must log in.
Supporting unconfigured interfaces is something that we do want to support. I would think we already have a bug about this, but maybe it was only a road map item. The charm had a workaround for it in the past (IIRC white listing MAC Addresses in the charm config), which is absolutely a workaround for us not having the right pieces modeled to expose it properly. Did 2.1b4 break the existing workaround or is it that you were hoping unconfigured space support was already implemented?