)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":8313,"name":"Lajos Katona","display_name":"lajoskatona","email":"katonalala@gmail.com","username":"elajkat","status":"Ericsson Software Technology"},"change_message_id":"a33b622fb51d1cd01111f411f1fd34ffbe3e9a02","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"a3f22975_edc11c21","updated":"2022-03-02 17:58:33.000000000","message":"Could you please abandon this one and squash with https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron-specs/+/823823 (I think this one is the active spec)","commit_id":"c840deebf70d6453285fc848e5127051a378f146"},{"author":{"_account_id":16688,"name":"Rodolfo Alonso","email":"ralonsoh@redhat.com","username":"rodolfo-alonso-hernandez"},"change_message_id":"0a1e57ab7ec86276f726c4545393f73c091d55d7","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"0fb09d00_0d01c3e3","updated":"2022-01-12 17:50:31.000000000","message":"I don\u0027t think Lajos was proposing this but just adding more info. The spec referred [1] was not merged. I think Lajos\u0027 comment purpose was to give you more documentation, not to abandon your spec.\n\n[1]https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron-specs/+/657170","commit_id":"c840deebf70d6453285fc848e5127051a378f146"},{"author":{"_account_id":11975,"name":"Slawek Kaplonski","email":"skaplons@redhat.com","username":"slaweq"},"change_message_id":"092c44e80f959dec3d13f6e6e63ae24226ee8a05","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"c5ff15e3_1b5b3363","updated":"2022-01-27 08:47:14.000000000","message":"You should still work with Your original patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron-specs/+/823823/ and propose new revisions of it instead of proposing new patches on top of that one. Please see https://docs.opendev.org/opendev/infra-manual/latest/developers.html for details about workflow with gerrit","commit_id":"c840deebf70d6453285fc848e5127051a378f146"},{"author":{"_account_id":11928,"name":"jpic","email":"jamespic@gmail.com","username":"jpic"},"change_message_id":"91dd2213e536c4ee12878b500d62e1802d70f865","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"023a1adc_c44fb127","in_reply_to":"0fb09d00_0d01c3e3","updated":"2022-01-13 15:57:50.000000000","message":"Yes, I ended up trying their patch and it does what we want with OVS (as described in my own RFE) without touching OVS itself so I thought it was even better.\n\nThe only problem then is that the DHCP port which openstack thinks it can bind on each subnet of each segment of the network: it has one fixed address per subnet which means per segment, and that\u0027s not manageable on network layer 2. \n\nThe patch in question, allowing multiple segments per physnet on a host, actually only binds the first segment, so, other fixed ips on different segments can\u0027t live on the same port.\n\nWhich is why I added the new PortConnectedToMultipleSegments exception, because it turns out removing HostConnectedToMultipleSegments exception only allows us to push back the limitation from host level to port level, not to actually remove it.\n\nWhich is also why I added the DHCP namespace port change proposal to the RFE. It\u0027s what will require most code change apparently.\n\nAlso, I changed the proposal to address the comments that were on the initial RFE.\n\nWhere do you suggest I go from here?","commit_id":"c840deebf70d6453285fc848e5127051a378f146"}]}