)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":3217,"name":"Ian Wells","username":"ijw-ubuntu"},"change_message_id":"f20dc3446667f4543d907dd687f58c9927b849c9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":9,"context_line":"Currently the network info specified as part of"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"server creation is limited to network-id, port-id,"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"and ip address. When a network has multiple subnets"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"then we need to also be able to specify a subnet-id."},{"line_number":13,"context_line":""},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"APIImpact"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"DocImpact"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":10,"id":"1af86dd1_905f190e","line":12,"updated":"2015-06-12 18:28:13.000000000","message":"s/need/should/ as in fact it works just fine today with multiple subnets, but this is a nit.","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"cfa7572041ef82a78bfff335419686cb299f1229","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":9,"context_line":"Currently the network info specified as part of"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"server creation is limited to network-id, port-id,"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"and ip address. When a network has multiple subnets"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"then we need to also be able to specify a subnet-id."},{"line_number":13,"context_line":""},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"APIImpact"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"DocImpact"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":10,"id":"fa32b979_904e2bc0","line":12,"in_reply_to":"1af86dd1_905f190e","updated":"2015-06-15 02:25:09.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"}],"specs/liberty/approved/selecting-subnet-when-creating-vm.rst":[{"author":{"_account_id":782,"name":"John Garbutt","email":"john@johngarbutt.com","username":"johngarbutt"},"change_message_id":"ca4bbecf1b2a8da157da67eeef902063588ba3c9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":66,"context_line":""},{"line_number":67,"context_line":"The new \u0027spawn\u0027 rest API::"},{"line_number":68,"context_line":""},{"line_number":69,"context_line":"    POST /{project_id}/servers"},{"line_number":70,"context_line":"    {"},{"line_number":71,"context_line":"        \u0027server\u0027:{"},{"line_number":72,"context_line":"        ..."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":3,"id":"3ab451fb_8a95b0e5","line":69,"updated":"2015-04-17 18:06:05.000000000","message":"please confirm this will only be added to v2.1 now the v2 API has been frozen.","commit_id":"faf2a8480a5354264fb6f34f1105490efd029a67"},{"author":{"_account_id":782,"name":"John Garbutt","email":"john@johngarbutt.com","username":"johngarbutt"},"change_message_id":"ca4bbecf1b2a8da157da67eeef902063588ba3c9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":110,"context_line":""},{"line_number":111,"context_line":"  That means, if both \u0027subnet-id\u0027 \u0026 \u0027net-id\u0027 are specified, \u0027subnet-id\u0027"},{"line_number":112,"context_line":"  will effect here and \u0027net-uuid\u0027 will be ignored like port specified."},{"line_number":113,"context_line":""},{"line_number":114,"context_line":""},{"line_number":115,"context_line":"Security impact"},{"line_number":116,"context_line":"---------------"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":3,"id":"3ab451fb_0adc00e3","line":113,"updated":"2015-04-17 18:06:05.000000000","message":"We now require a json schema update in the spec to describe the changes, please add that here.","commit_id":"faf2a8480a5354264fb6f34f1105490efd029a67"},{"author":{"_account_id":782,"name":"John Garbutt","email":"john@johngarbutt.com","username":"johngarbutt"},"change_message_id":"b2d91d52a03d63b123d63716fb07631627bd69c2","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":156,"context_line":""},{"line_number":157,"context_line":"* The \u0027subnet-id\u0027 has higher priority than \u0027v4-fixed-ip\u0027/\u0027v6-fixed-ip\u0027."},{"line_number":158,"context_line":""},{"line_number":159,"context_line":"  That means, if both \u0027subnet-id\u0027 \u0026 \u0027v4-fixed-ip\u0027/\u0027v6-fixed-ip\u0027 are specified,"},{"line_number":160,"context_line":"  \u0027subnet-id\u0027 will be used and the \u0027v4-fixed-ip\u0027/\u0027v6-fixed-ip\u0027 won\u0027t effect."},{"line_number":161,"context_line":""},{"line_number":162,"context_line":"* The \u0027net-uuid\u0027 parameter still has the lowest priority like before."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":6,"id":"bab921fb_a71aff15","line":159,"updated":"2015-04-23 08:17:10.000000000","message":"Are we sure thats the correct way around?\n\nIf a user wants a specific IP, then surely we just ignore the subnet-id, as the IP would define the subnet implicitly?","commit_id":"aa8c42bfb581a5c4c8aa0af495fe53248d309b26"},{"author":{"_account_id":9775,"name":"Sudipta Biswas","email":"sbiswas7@in.ibm.com","username":"sudswas"},"change_message_id":"5c905aa6f795be57d1d70e6ae00b5254e9743d6b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":156,"context_line":""},{"line_number":157,"context_line":"* The \u0027subnet-id\u0027 has higher priority than \u0027v4-fixed-ip\u0027/\u0027v6-fixed-ip\u0027."},{"line_number":158,"context_line":""},{"line_number":159,"context_line":"  That means, if both \u0027subnet-id\u0027 \u0026 \u0027v4-fixed-ip\u0027/\u0027v6-fixed-ip\u0027 are specified,"},{"line_number":160,"context_line":"  \u0027subnet-id\u0027 will be used and the \u0027v4-fixed-ip\u0027/\u0027v6-fixed-ip\u0027 won\u0027t effect."},{"line_number":161,"context_line":""},{"line_number":162,"context_line":"* The \u0027net-uuid\u0027 parameter still has the lowest priority like before."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":6,"id":"7a016987_66ad2331","line":159,"in_reply_to":"9abe1de1_409c3f69","updated":"2015-05-14 09:09:58.000000000","message":"Will this not lead to more confusion? If the port-id is not in the same subnet range - then it\u0027s a discrepancy IMHO.","commit_id":"aa8c42bfb581a5c4c8aa0af495fe53248d309b26"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"f6924e04e4f617903ac7705ed813b994c35d9fc4","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":156,"context_line":""},{"line_number":157,"context_line":"* The \u0027subnet-id\u0027 has higher priority than \u0027v4-fixed-ip\u0027/\u0027v6-fixed-ip\u0027."},{"line_number":158,"context_line":""},{"line_number":159,"context_line":"  That means, if both \u0027subnet-id\u0027 \u0026 \u0027v4-fixed-ip\u0027/\u0027v6-fixed-ip\u0027 are specified,"},{"line_number":160,"context_line":"  \u0027subnet-id\u0027 will be used and the \u0027v4-fixed-ip\u0027/\u0027v6-fixed-ip\u0027 won\u0027t effect."},{"line_number":161,"context_line":""},{"line_number":162,"context_line":"* The \u0027net-uuid\u0027 parameter still has the lowest priority like before."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":6,"id":"9abe1de1_409c3f69","line":159,"in_reply_to":"bab921fb_9a7989ff","updated":"2015-04-28 03:37:51.000000000","message":"Now the fixed-ip just can work with network-id together, so I think if subnet and network\u0026fixed-ip are set at the same time, the subnet should win according to the priorty, port \u003e subnet \u003e network.","commit_id":"aa8c42bfb581a5c4c8aa0af495fe53248d309b26"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"7c8b899f996a1876d2605d0ff24102d438f1867a","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":156,"context_line":""},{"line_number":157,"context_line":"* The \u0027subnet-id\u0027 has higher priority than \u0027v4-fixed-ip\u0027/\u0027v6-fixed-ip\u0027."},{"line_number":158,"context_line":""},{"line_number":159,"context_line":"  That means, if both \u0027subnet-id\u0027 \u0026 \u0027v4-fixed-ip\u0027/\u0027v6-fixed-ip\u0027 are specified,"},{"line_number":160,"context_line":"  \u0027subnet-id\u0027 will be used and the \u0027v4-fixed-ip\u0027/\u0027v6-fixed-ip\u0027 won\u0027t effect."},{"line_number":161,"context_line":""},{"line_number":162,"context_line":"* The \u0027net-uuid\u0027 parameter still has the lowest priority like before."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":6,"id":"bab921fb_9a7989ff","line":159,"in_reply_to":"bab921fb_a71aff15","updated":"2015-04-23 13:36:37.000000000","message":"There are three ways to specify the request_network during booting instance, if the user want to use a specified fixed-ip, network\u0026fixed-ip should be work.\n* port\n* subnet\n* network or network\u0026fixed-ip\n\nI set the network parameter as lowest priority in the specification, so network\u0026fixed-ip should been ignored when the subnet is specified. \n\nI define the priority according to the scope of networking concept, port \u003e subnet \u003e network.","commit_id":"aa8c42bfb581a5c4c8aa0af495fe53248d309b26"},{"author":{"_account_id":782,"name":"John Garbutt","email":"john@johngarbutt.com","username":"johngarbutt"},"change_message_id":"b2d91d52a03d63b123d63716fb07631627bd69c2","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":162,"context_line":"* The \u0027net-uuid\u0027 parameter still has the lowest priority like before."},{"line_number":163,"context_line":""},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"  That means, if both \u0027subnet-id\u0027 \u0026 \u0027net-id\u0027 are specified, \u0027subnet-id\u0027"},{"line_number":165,"context_line":"  will effect here and \u0027net-uuid\u0027 will be ignored like port specified."},{"line_number":166,"context_line":""},{"line_number":167,"context_line":""},{"line_number":168,"context_line":"Security impact"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":6,"id":"bab921fb_c7cbb371","line":165,"updated":"2015-04-23 08:17:10.000000000","message":"Really this is a different spec, but the v2.1 API generally has strong validation.\n\nSo it might be better to return bad request if there are conflicting requests around the network?\n\nWould that make this logic simpler? Maybe its worth doing as part of this change?","commit_id":"aa8c42bfb581a5c4c8aa0af495fe53248d309b26"},{"author":{"_account_id":9775,"name":"Sudipta Biswas","email":"sbiswas7@in.ibm.com","username":"sudswas"},"change_message_id":"c739c934aab0a8f2f047721cb4fedaef5f7e443b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":162,"context_line":"* The \u0027net-uuid\u0027 parameter still has the lowest priority like before."},{"line_number":163,"context_line":""},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"  That means, if both \u0027subnet-id\u0027 \u0026 \u0027net-id\u0027 are specified, \u0027subnet-id\u0027"},{"line_number":165,"context_line":"  will effect here and \u0027net-uuid\u0027 will be ignored like port specified."},{"line_number":166,"context_line":""},{"line_number":167,"context_line":""},{"line_number":168,"context_line":"Security impact"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":6,"id":"7a016987_5c343add","line":165,"in_reply_to":"7a016987_21827553","updated":"2015-05-14 09:11:26.000000000","message":"Seems like we hit the review button at the same time. My comment above was for John\u0027s first comment. Sorry about the confusion.","commit_id":"aa8c42bfb581a5c4c8aa0af495fe53248d309b26"},{"author":{"_account_id":9775,"name":"Sudipta Biswas","email":"sbiswas7@in.ibm.com","username":"sudswas"},"change_message_id":"5c905aa6f795be57d1d70e6ae00b5254e9743d6b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":162,"context_line":"* The \u0027net-uuid\u0027 parameter still has the lowest priority like before."},{"line_number":163,"context_line":""},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"  That means, if both \u0027subnet-id\u0027 \u0026 \u0027net-id\u0027 are specified, \u0027subnet-id\u0027"},{"line_number":165,"context_line":"  will effect here and \u0027net-uuid\u0027 will be ignored like port specified."},{"line_number":166,"context_line":""},{"line_number":167,"context_line":""},{"line_number":168,"context_line":"Security impact"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":6,"id":"7a016987_21827553","line":165,"in_reply_to":"7ad32947_81e48b3b","updated":"2015-05-14 09:09:58.000000000","message":"I think what John means (or my guess) is that today you can specify a combination of network_id and port_id and if the port_id doesn\u0027t belong to the network_id (in turn the subnet associated with the network_id) - it\u0027s a bad request. In a similar way - if you have a conflict between subnet_id and port_id specified by the user - you should throw a bad request for that. And continuing it further, if you specify a subnet_id and that doesn\u0027t belong to a given network_id - it should probably be a bad request instead of precedence.\n\nIMHO, since subnet_id will always correspond to a network_id - it might not be worth having a subnet_id and network_id combination. Thoughts?","commit_id":"aa8c42bfb581a5c4c8aa0af495fe53248d309b26"},{"author":{"_account_id":782,"name":"John Garbutt","email":"john@johngarbutt.com","username":"johngarbutt"},"change_message_id":"e63f53b2a8b64772f966558235d75da21e2b53e4","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":162,"context_line":"* The \u0027net-uuid\u0027 parameter still has the lowest priority like before."},{"line_number":163,"context_line":""},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"  That means, if both \u0027subnet-id\u0027 \u0026 \u0027net-id\u0027 are specified, \u0027subnet-id\u0027"},{"line_number":165,"context_line":"  will effect here and \u0027net-uuid\u0027 will be ignored like port specified."},{"line_number":166,"context_line":""},{"line_number":167,"context_line":""},{"line_number":168,"context_line":"Security impact"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":6,"id":"7a016987_c17161e2","line":165,"in_reply_to":"7ad32947_81e48b3b","updated":"2015-05-14 09:08:55.000000000","message":"Ignoring a redundant parameter can cause to a lot of confusion for users, when the API starts doing unexpected things.\n\nNow where combinations make sense, we could allow them, assuming they are valid. But ignoring them seems bad, and might lead to confusion.\n\nIn the v2.1 API we are now always going for strong validation, to stop that confusion.","commit_id":"aa8c42bfb581a5c4c8aa0af495fe53248d309b26"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"7c8b899f996a1876d2605d0ff24102d438f1867a","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":162,"context_line":"* The \u0027net-uuid\u0027 parameter still has the lowest priority like before."},{"line_number":163,"context_line":""},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"  That means, if both \u0027subnet-id\u0027 \u0026 \u0027net-id\u0027 are specified, \u0027subnet-id\u0027"},{"line_number":165,"context_line":"  will effect here and \u0027net-uuid\u0027 will be ignored like port specified."},{"line_number":166,"context_line":""},{"line_number":167,"context_line":""},{"line_number":168,"context_line":"Security impact"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":6,"id":"bab921fb_eebe87fe","line":165,"in_reply_to":"bab921fb_c7cbb371","updated":"2015-04-23 13:36:37.000000000","message":"IMHO, I don\u0027t think nova should check the network conflicting, maybe ignoring the redundant parameter is the better way, I\u0027m not sure. wait others comments.","commit_id":"aa8c42bfb581a5c4c8aa0af495fe53248d309b26"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"f6924e04e4f617903ac7705ed813b994c35d9fc4","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":162,"context_line":"* The \u0027net-uuid\u0027 parameter still has the lowest priority like before."},{"line_number":163,"context_line":""},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"  That means, if both \u0027subnet-id\u0027 \u0026 \u0027net-id\u0027 are specified, \u0027subnet-id\u0027"},{"line_number":165,"context_line":"  will effect here and \u0027net-uuid\u0027 will be ignored like port specified."},{"line_number":166,"context_line":""},{"line_number":167,"context_line":""},{"line_number":168,"context_line":"Security impact"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":6,"id":"7ad32947_81e48b3b","line":165,"in_reply_to":"bab921fb_eebe87fe","updated":"2015-04-28 03:37:51.000000000","message":"Hi @John, what\u0027s your meaning about conflicting request?\n\nOnly one of parameters (network, subnet, port) can exist in one request_network entry of booting instance request? Raising BadRequest in other cases?\n\nFor example:\n\nOK\n\"networks\": [{\n\t\t\t\"uuid\": \"xxx\"\n\t\t}]\n\nOK\n\"networks\": [{\n\t\t\t\"port\": \"yyy\"\n\t\t}]\n\nOK\n\"networks\": [{\n\t\t\t\"subnet\": \"zzz\"\n\t\t}]\n\nBadRequest\n\"networks\": [{\n\t\t\t\"uuid\": \"xxx\",\n\t\t\t\"port\": \"yyy\",\n\t\t\t\"subnet\": \"zzz\"\n\t\t}]\n\nBadRequest\n\"networks\": [{\n\t\t\t\"uuid\": \"xxx\",\n\t\t\t\"port\": \"yyy\"\n\t\t}]\n\nBadRequest\n\"networks\": [{\n\t\t\t\"port\": \"yyy\",\n\t\t\t\"subnet\": \"zzz\"\n\t\t}]\n\nBadRequest\n\"networks\": [{\n\t\t\t\"uuid\": \"xxx\",\n\t\t\t\"subnet\": \"zzz\"\n\t\t}]","commit_id":"aa8c42bfb581a5c4c8aa0af495fe53248d309b26"},{"author":{"_account_id":11343,"name":"Gal Sagie","email":"gal.sagie@gmail.com","username":"GalSagie"},"change_message_id":"a1293e19cadd9e766d54e3f2d5443783e2ffea45","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":20,"context_line":""},{"line_number":21,"context_line":"Currently the network info specified as part of server creation is limited to"},{"line_number":22,"context_line":"network-id, port-id, and ip address."},{"line_number":23,"context_line":""},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"So if an network has multiple subnets in it, it\u0027s impossible to select"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"which of the possible subnets a VM should be created in."},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":8,"id":"7a016987_74e4fb3a","line":23,"updated":"2015-05-30 04:59:20.000000000","message":"Maybe add that this is an optional field, because users might just want to get a VM up fast without care for the specific subnet","commit_id":"079fdbe17519721970ccd05a0eca16ca249c7d35"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"d54b87f33c5c556981a4b2ecff14df4d42717ddb","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":20,"context_line":""},{"line_number":21,"context_line":"Currently the network info specified as part of server creation is limited to"},{"line_number":22,"context_line":"network-id, port-id, and ip address."},{"line_number":23,"context_line":""},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"So if an network has multiple subnets in it, it\u0027s impossible to select"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"which of the possible subnets a VM should be created in."},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":8,"id":"7a016987_7edbb94f","line":23,"in_reply_to":"7a016987_74e4fb3a","updated":"2015-05-30 07:53:53.000000000","message":"Subnet_id is optional field, you can find details in the following JSON schema and \u0027Proposed change\u0027 section.","commit_id":"079fdbe17519721970ccd05a0eca16ca249c7d35"},{"author":{"_account_id":11343,"name":"Gal Sagie","email":"gal.sagie@gmail.com","username":"GalSagie"},"change_message_id":"8d601446fa5db1100845fafbae9e259c500ceaa0","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":20,"context_line":""},{"line_number":21,"context_line":"Currently the network info specified as part of server creation is limited to"},{"line_number":22,"context_line":"network-id, port-id, and ip address."},{"line_number":23,"context_line":""},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"So if an network has multiple subnets in it, it\u0027s impossible to select"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"which of the possible subnets a VM should be created in."},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":8,"id":"7a016987_87ae247f","line":23,"in_reply_to":"7a016987_7edbb94f","updated":"2015-05-30 16:22:44.000000000","message":"I see it as required, but as long as you keep it optional its good, this also won\u0027t break backward compatbility","commit_id":"079fdbe17519721970ccd05a0eca16ca249c7d35"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"0336879e24201fda6c36b4c1dc8089c02c064513","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":20,"context_line":""},{"line_number":21,"context_line":"Currently the network info specified as part of server creation is limited to"},{"line_number":22,"context_line":"network-id, port-id, and ip address."},{"line_number":23,"context_line":""},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"So if an network has multiple subnets in it, it\u0027s impossible to select"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"which of the possible subnets a VM should be created in."},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":8,"id":"7a016987_b9e6e0ad","line":23,"in_reply_to":"7a016987_87ae247f","updated":"2015-06-01 02:29:04.000000000","message":"\u0027oneOf\u0027: [\n\n{\u0027required\u0027: [\u0027port\u0027]},\n\n{\u0027required\u0027: [\u0027subnet_id\u0027]},\t\n\n{\u0027required\u0027: [\u0027uuid\u0027]}\n\n]\n\nThe \u0027oneOf\u0027 means the parameter is valid under each of \u0027port\u0027, \u0027subnet_id\u0027, \u0027uuid\u0027, the \u0027subnet_id\u0027 is not required if port or uuid exist, so it don\u0027t break backward compatibility.","commit_id":"079fdbe17519721970ccd05a0eca16ca249c7d35"},{"author":{"_account_id":11343,"name":"Gal Sagie","email":"gal.sagie@gmail.com","username":"GalSagie"},"change_message_id":"37479177980a12ecef71e88bb082469a75c5bef3","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":20,"context_line":""},{"line_number":21,"context_line":"Currently the network info specified as part of server creation is limited to"},{"line_number":22,"context_line":"network-id, port-id, and ip address."},{"line_number":23,"context_line":""},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"So if an network has multiple subnets in it, it\u0027s impossible to select"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"which of the possible subnets a VM should be created in."},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":8,"id":"7a016987_af97ae38","line":23,"in_reply_to":"7a016987_b9e6e0ad","updated":"2015-06-01 04:36:47.000000000","message":"ok, thanks for the clarify","commit_id":"079fdbe17519721970ccd05a0eca16ca249c7d35"},{"author":{"_account_id":11343,"name":"Gal Sagie","email":"gal.sagie@gmail.com","username":"GalSagie"},"change_message_id":"a1293e19cadd9e766d54e3f2d5443783e2ffea45","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":24,"context_line":"So if an network has multiple subnets in it, it\u0027s impossible to select"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"which of the possible subnets a VM should be created in."},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"But this is not a convenient way. Moreover, this method is also not available"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"for bulk instances creation."},{"line_number":29,"context_line":""},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"Use Cases"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":8,"id":"7a016987_34d1e357","line":27,"updated":"2015-05-30 04:59:20.000000000","message":"Maybe also should consider to pick subnet allocation pool instead of subnet","commit_id":"079fdbe17519721970ccd05a0eca16ca249c7d35"},{"author":{"_account_id":11343,"name":"Gal Sagie","email":"gal.sagie@gmail.com","username":"GalSagie"},"change_message_id":"8d601446fa5db1100845fafbae9e259c500ceaa0","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":24,"context_line":"So if an network has multiple subnets in it, it\u0027s impossible to select"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"which of the possible subnets a VM should be created in."},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"But this is not a convenient way. Moreover, this method is also not available"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"for bulk instances creation."},{"line_number":29,"context_line":""},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"Use Cases"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":8,"id":"7a016987_47cdcc64","line":27,"in_reply_to":"7a016987_1ea16594","updated":"2015-05-30 16:22:44.000000000","message":"I was only making a suggestion that the user might want to pick the pool when creating and not a specific subnet it sounds to me better granularity, but either way works i guess","commit_id":"079fdbe17519721970ccd05a0eca16ca249c7d35"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"d54b87f33c5c556981a4b2ecff14df4d42717ddb","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":24,"context_line":"So if an network has multiple subnets in it, it\u0027s impossible to select"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"which of the possible subnets a VM should be created in."},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"But this is not a convenient way. Moreover, this method is also not available"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"for bulk instances creation."},{"line_number":29,"context_line":""},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"Use Cases"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":8,"id":"7a016987_1ea16594","line":27,"in_reply_to":"7a016987_34d1e357","updated":"2015-05-30 07:53:53.000000000","message":"I use the uuid of subnet as parameter, see \u0027Example use case\u0027.\n\nIt\u0027s uuid, not cidr or ip scope, so I don\u0027t know why you suggest to use allocation pool.","commit_id":"079fdbe17519721970ccd05a0eca16ca249c7d35"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"0336879e24201fda6c36b4c1dc8089c02c064513","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":24,"context_line":"So if an network has multiple subnets in it, it\u0027s impossible to select"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"which of the possible subnets a VM should be created in."},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"But this is not a convenient way. Moreover, this method is also not available"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"for bulk instances creation."},{"line_number":29,"context_line":""},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"Use Cases"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":8,"id":"7a016987_f401fd05","line":27,"in_reply_to":"7a016987_47cdcc64","updated":"2015-06-01 02:29:04.000000000","message":"the subnet uuid is unique and no fuzzy, it refer a neutron resource clearly in nova side, and when we boot a instance, nova need to create port in neutron side, creating port with subnet uuid is supported in neutron api, I don\u0027t know too much for neutron, but I don\u0027t think that it\u0027s supported for creating port with allocation pool of subnet in neutron api.\n\nAnd even if it can be supported, it\u0027s out of scope for this BP IMO.","commit_id":"079fdbe17519721970ccd05a0eca16ca249c7d35"},{"author":{"_account_id":11343,"name":"Gal Sagie","email":"gal.sagie@gmail.com","username":"GalSagie"},"change_message_id":"37479177980a12ecef71e88bb082469a75c5bef3","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":24,"context_line":"So if an network has multiple subnets in it, it\u0027s impossible to select"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"which of the possible subnets a VM should be created in."},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"But this is not a convenient way. Moreover, this method is also not available"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"for bulk instances creation."},{"line_number":29,"context_line":""},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"Use Cases"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":8,"id":"7a016987_2facde8a","line":27,"in_reply_to":"7a016987_f401fd05","updated":"2015-06-01 04:36:47.000000000","message":"ok","commit_id":"079fdbe17519721970ccd05a0eca16ca249c7d35"},{"author":{"_account_id":782,"name":"John Garbutt","email":"john@johngarbutt.com","username":"johngarbutt"},"change_message_id":"d2dffee0cd29bac79bf77fe6ae7fd04a00f708c1","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":38,"context_line":"----------------"},{"line_number":39,"context_line":""},{"line_number":40,"context_line":"The liberty priorities list is currently not defined. However under the"},{"line_number":41,"context_line":"currently proposed list of priorities it would fall under \"User Experience\"."},{"line_number":42,"context_line":""},{"line_number":43,"context_line":"Proposed change"},{"line_number":44,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":8,"id":"3afb71cf_67227a03","line":41,"updated":"2015-06-08 10:36:40.000000000","message":"This should be: None","commit_id":"079fdbe17519721970ccd05a0eca16ca249c7d35"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"533f8cb182cc363acd320f44408064f5dc0d9dbf","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":38,"context_line":"----------------"},{"line_number":39,"context_line":""},{"line_number":40,"context_line":"The liberty priorities list is currently not defined. However under the"},{"line_number":41,"context_line":"currently proposed list of priorities it would fall under \"User Experience\"."},{"line_number":42,"context_line":""},{"line_number":43,"context_line":"Proposed change"},{"line_number":44,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":8,"id":"3afb71cf_a92b8493","line":41,"in_reply_to":"3afb71cf_67227a03","updated":"2015-06-09 08:30:03.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"079fdbe17519721970ccd05a0eca16ca249c7d35"},{"author":{"_account_id":782,"name":"John Garbutt","email":"john@johngarbutt.com","username":"johngarbutt"},"change_message_id":"d2dffee0cd29bac79bf77fe6ae7fd04a00f708c1","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":181,"context_line":"NOTE:"},{"line_number":182,"context_line":""},{"line_number":183,"context_line":"Backwards compatibility will been broken, we add that with a microversion,"},{"line_number":184,"context_line":"users not using the newer version, can keep doing what they always did."},{"line_number":185,"context_line":""},{"line_number":186,"context_line":"When we boot instance with the network_id and fixed-ip, we can\u0027t judge whether"},{"line_number":187,"context_line":"the fixed-ip can be used to create a port in the nova side, think about the"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":8,"id":"3afb71cf_a7ebd277","line":184,"updated":"2015-06-08 10:36:40.000000000","message":"This might mean you have to relax the JSON schema? Actually, i think its OK.","commit_id":"079fdbe17519721970ccd05a0eca16ca249c7d35"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"533f8cb182cc363acd320f44408064f5dc0d9dbf","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":181,"context_line":"NOTE:"},{"line_number":182,"context_line":""},{"line_number":183,"context_line":"Backwards compatibility will been broken, we add that with a microversion,"},{"line_number":184,"context_line":"users not using the newer version, can keep doing what they always did."},{"line_number":185,"context_line":""},{"line_number":186,"context_line":"When we boot instance with the network_id and fixed-ip, we can\u0027t judge whether"},{"line_number":187,"context_line":"the fixed-ip can be used to create a port in the nova side, think about the"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":8,"id":"3afb71cf_c207b51a","line":184,"in_reply_to":"3afb71cf_a7ebd277","updated":"2015-06-09 08:30:03.000000000","message":"We dump a new microversion for this feature, users need to specify this or higher microversion to use it, so it don\u0027t impact the other users. I will update the description to make it more clear.","commit_id":"079fdbe17519721970ccd05a0eca16ca249c7d35"},{"author":{"_account_id":782,"name":"John Garbutt","email":"john@johngarbutt.com","username":"johngarbutt"},"change_message_id":"d2dffee0cd29bac79bf77fe6ae7fd04a00f708c1","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":245,"context_line":"  * Use \u0027subnet_id\u0027 for \u0027allocate_for_instance()\u0027"},{"line_number":246,"context_line":"    in nova/network/neutronv2/api.py"},{"line_number":247,"context_line":""},{"line_number":248,"context_line":"  * Add related tests both API \u0026 nova-compute"},{"line_number":249,"context_line":""},{"line_number":250,"context_line":"In python-novaclient:"},{"line_number":251,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":8,"id":"3afb71cf_67083a2e","line":248,"updated":"2015-06-08 10:36:40.000000000","message":"Add restrictions on the user of subnet_id and port_id, etc?","commit_id":"079fdbe17519721970ccd05a0eca16ca249c7d35"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"533f8cb182cc363acd320f44408064f5dc0d9dbf","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":245,"context_line":"  * Use \u0027subnet_id\u0027 for \u0027allocate_for_instance()\u0027"},{"line_number":246,"context_line":"    in nova/network/neutronv2/api.py"},{"line_number":247,"context_line":""},{"line_number":248,"context_line":"  * Add related tests both API \u0026 nova-compute"},{"line_number":249,"context_line":""},{"line_number":250,"context_line":"In python-novaclient:"},{"line_number":251,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":8,"id":"3afb71cf_d453ec69","line":248,"in_reply_to":"3afb71cf_67083a2e","updated":"2015-06-09 08:30:03.000000000","message":"yeah, I get it.","commit_id":"079fdbe17519721970ccd05a0eca16ca249c7d35"},{"author":{"_account_id":4656,"name":"Sean M. Collins","email":"sean@coreitpro.com","username":"scollins"},"change_message_id":"785f350a3e75bc9afc379bc203c3e3354740c53f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":25,"context_line":"which of the possible subnets a VM should be created in."},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"But this is not a convenient way. Moreover, this method is also not available"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"for bulk instances creation."},{"line_number":29,"context_line":""},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"Use Cases"},{"line_number":31,"context_line":"---------"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":9,"id":"3afb71cf_ee4d709a","line":28,"updated":"2015-06-11 16:55:06.000000000","message":"How do we handle an instance where a Neutron network contains two subnets:\n\nOne IPv4 subnet that uses DHCP, and then an IPv6 subnet that is set with ipv6_address_mode \u003d \"slaac\" and ipv6_ra_mode \u003d \"slaac\" - the current behavior is to assign an IPv6 address to this instance so that it\u0027ll show up in API requests. The instance, when it attaches to the network will receive an ICMPv6 packet, and _will_ configure an IPv6 address.","commit_id":"3f4359c7786b70fe7c9533d72d6b66ca3ae45fb9"},{"author":{"_account_id":782,"name":"John Garbutt","email":"john@johngarbutt.com","username":"johngarbutt"},"change_message_id":"48cbc90cfbc45a38fcbf993ba07e66942f7492ca","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":38,"context_line":"----------------"},{"line_number":39,"context_line":""},{"line_number":40,"context_line":"The liberty priorities list is currently not defined. However under the"},{"line_number":41,"context_line":"currently proposed list of priorities it would fall under \"User Experience\"."},{"line_number":42,"context_line":""},{"line_number":43,"context_line":"Proposed change"},{"line_number":44,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":9,"id":"3afb71cf_32ba7e24","line":41,"updated":"2015-06-08 10:40:56.000000000","message":"This should be \"None\" as well now.","commit_id":"3f4359c7786b70fe7c9533d72d6b66ca3ae45fb9"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"dc885dd682f3e06025ec324bd049d307e3733341","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":38,"context_line":"----------------"},{"line_number":39,"context_line":""},{"line_number":40,"context_line":"The liberty priorities list is currently not defined. However under the"},{"line_number":41,"context_line":"currently proposed list of priorities it would fall under \"User Experience\"."},{"line_number":42,"context_line":""},{"line_number":43,"context_line":"Proposed change"},{"line_number":44,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":9,"id":"3afb71cf_a9e1449c","line":41,"in_reply_to":"3afb71cf_32ba7e24","updated":"2015-06-09 08:30:27.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"3f4359c7786b70fe7c9533d72d6b66ca3ae45fb9"},{"author":{"_account_id":12171,"name":"Moshe Levi","email":"moshele@nvidia.com","username":"moshele"},"change_message_id":"d30024b2f7d2c241aabd0a7b5ebfe6d127d6aafa","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":50,"context_line":""},{"line_number":51,"context_line":"3. Bulk instances creation with \u0027subnet_id\u0027 will be supported,"},{"line_number":52,"context_line":"   as the \u0027net-uuid\u0027 is specified."},{"line_number":53,"context_line":""},{"line_number":54,"context_line":"Alternatives"},{"line_number":55,"context_line":"------------"},{"line_number":56,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":9,"id":"3afb71cf_1e754897","line":53,"updated":"2015-06-08 13:35:08.000000000","message":"this look like just proxy parameter from nova to neutron.\nI failed to see how this blueprint is different from adding vnic_type to the nova command line https://review.openstack.org/#/c/138808/\nI mean in the principle matter. I thought we don\u0027t want to keep proxy nova to neutron attributes.","commit_id":"3f4359c7786b70fe7c9533d72d6b66ca3ae45fb9"},{"author":{"_account_id":782,"name":"John Garbutt","email":"john@johngarbutt.com","username":"johngarbutt"},"change_message_id":"267cd8bd64d2c301a9622bcbae0627c15a121fa3","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":245,"context_line":"  * Use \u0027subnet_id\u0027 for \u0027allocate_for_instance()\u0027"},{"line_number":246,"context_line":"    in nova/network/neutronv2/api.py"},{"line_number":247,"context_line":""},{"line_number":248,"context_line":"  * Add related tests both API \u0026 nova-compute"},{"line_number":249,"context_line":""},{"line_number":250,"context_line":"In python-novaclient:"},{"line_number":251,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":9,"id":"3afb71cf_1219c279","line":248,"updated":"2015-06-08 10:40:26.000000000","message":"I think its worth adding a note here around adding validation to stop newer versions accepting port_id and subnet_id, etc.","commit_id":"3f4359c7786b70fe7c9533d72d6b66ca3ae45fb9"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"dc885dd682f3e06025ec324bd049d307e3733341","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":245,"context_line":"  * Use \u0027subnet_id\u0027 for \u0027allocate_for_instance()\u0027"},{"line_number":246,"context_line":"    in nova/network/neutronv2/api.py"},{"line_number":247,"context_line":""},{"line_number":248,"context_line":"  * Add related tests both API \u0026 nova-compute"},{"line_number":249,"context_line":""},{"line_number":250,"context_line":"In python-novaclient:"},{"line_number":251,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":9,"id":"3afb71cf_b42d10aa","line":248,"in_reply_to":"3afb71cf_1219c279","updated":"2015-06-09 08:30:27.000000000","message":"Agree.","commit_id":"3f4359c7786b70fe7c9533d72d6b66ca3ae45fb9"},{"author":{"_account_id":3217,"name":"Ian Wells","username":"ijw-ubuntu"},"change_message_id":"f20dc3446667f4543d907dd687f58c9927b849c9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":12,"context_line":""},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"Currently the network info specified as part of server creation is limited to"},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"network-id, port-id, and ip address. When a network has multiple subnets"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"then we need to also be able to specify a subnet-id."},{"line_number":16,"context_line":""},{"line_number":17,"context_line":""},{"line_number":18,"context_line":"Problem description"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"1af86dd1_70e93d1a","line":15,"updated":"2015-06-12 18:28:13.000000000","message":"Not need to, want to or should be able to.","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"cfa7572041ef82a78bfff335419686cb299f1229","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":12,"context_line":""},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"Currently the network info specified as part of server creation is limited to"},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"network-id, port-id, and ip address. When a network has multiple subnets"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"then we need to also be able to specify a subnet-id."},{"line_number":16,"context_line":""},{"line_number":17,"context_line":""},{"line_number":18,"context_line":"Problem description"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"fa32b979_70ccc735","line":15,"in_reply_to":"1af86dd1_70e93d1a","updated":"2015-06-15 02:25:09.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":3217,"name":"Ian Wells","username":"ijw-ubuntu"},"change_message_id":"f20dc3446667f4543d907dd687f58c9927b849c9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":25,"context_line":"which of the possible subnets a VM should be created in."},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"But this is not a convenient way. Moreover, this method is also not available"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"for bulk instances creation."},{"line_number":29,"context_line":""},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"Use Cases"},{"line_number":31,"context_line":"---------"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"1af86dd1_50ee4123","line":28,"updated":"2015-06-12 18:28:13.000000000","message":"This is not actually a problem without a reason behind why you want them to be on the same subnet.","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"cfa7572041ef82a78bfff335419686cb299f1229","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":25,"context_line":"which of the possible subnets a VM should be created in."},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"But this is not a convenient way. Moreover, this method is also not available"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"for bulk instances creation."},{"line_number":29,"context_line":""},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"Use Cases"},{"line_number":31,"context_line":"---------"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"fa32b979_abe2e09d","line":28,"in_reply_to":"1af86dd1_50ee4123","updated":"2015-06-15 02:25:09.000000000","message":"I will add the details in \u0027Use Cases\u0027 section in next patch set.","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":4656,"name":"Sean M. Collins","email":"sean@coreitpro.com","username":"scollins"},"change_message_id":"46e4da56f473c0698d042294862f3ab19ce9c1e5","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":32,"context_line":""},{"line_number":33,"context_line":"As a End User, when a network has multiple subnets, I want to boot an instance"},{"line_number":34,"context_line":"in the specified subnet, and when I create bulk instances, I hope that these"},{"line_number":35,"context_line":"instances are running on same subnet in convenient way."},{"line_number":36,"context_line":""},{"line_number":37,"context_line":"Project Priority"},{"line_number":38,"context_line":"----------------"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"3afb71cf_a171c9aa","line":35,"updated":"2015-06-11 16:58:42.000000000","message":"How do we handle an instance where a Neutron network contains two subnets:\n\nOne IPv4 subnet that uses DHCP, and then an IPv6 subnet that is set with ipv6_address_mode \u003d \"slaac\" and ipv6_ra_mode \u003d \"slaac\" - the current behavior is to assign an IPv6 address to this instance so that it\u0027ll show up in API requests. The instance, when it attaches to the network will receive an ICMPv6 packet, and _will_ configure an IPv6 address.","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":3217,"name":"Ian Wells","username":"ijw-ubuntu"},"change_message_id":"f20dc3446667f4543d907dd687f58c9927b849c9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":32,"context_line":""},{"line_number":33,"context_line":"As a End User, when a network has multiple subnets, I want to boot an instance"},{"line_number":34,"context_line":"in the specified subnet, and when I create bulk instances, I hope that these"},{"line_number":35,"context_line":"instances are running on same subnet in convenient way."},{"line_number":36,"context_line":""},{"line_number":37,"context_line":"Project Priority"},{"line_number":38,"context_line":"----------------"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"1af86dd1_50876161","line":35,"updated":"2015-06-12 18:28:13.000000000","message":"You have explained what you want to do.  Could you maybe add a line to explain why you want them to be on the same subnet, as well?  If they\u0027re on different subnets they should still be able to talk to one another.","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"cfa7572041ef82a78bfff335419686cb299f1229","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":32,"context_line":""},{"line_number":33,"context_line":"As a End User, when a network has multiple subnets, I want to boot an instance"},{"line_number":34,"context_line":"in the specified subnet, and when I create bulk instances, I hope that these"},{"line_number":35,"context_line":"instances are running on same subnet in convenient way."},{"line_number":36,"context_line":""},{"line_number":37,"context_line":"Project Priority"},{"line_number":38,"context_line":"----------------"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"fa32b979_4b18f484","line":35,"in_reply_to":"1af86dd1_50876161","updated":"2015-06-15 02:25:09.000000000","message":"Yeah, the users want to boot a group of instances (belong to a department) in a subnet, so they can distinguish the network request come from which department according to the source ip, so booting instance with subnet is a convenient way.\n\nI will add this in next patch set.","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"e28fbbdebb766e3f6680bbf8fbf490e0f464dfaf","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":32,"context_line":""},{"line_number":33,"context_line":"As a End User, when a network has multiple subnets, I want to boot an instance"},{"line_number":34,"context_line":"in the specified subnet, and when I create bulk instances, I hope that these"},{"line_number":35,"context_line":"instances are running on same subnet in convenient way."},{"line_number":36,"context_line":""},{"line_number":37,"context_line":"Project Priority"},{"line_number":38,"context_line":"----------------"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"1af86dd1_5ec54759","line":35,"in_reply_to":"3afb71cf_a171c9aa","updated":"2015-06-12 10:33:05.000000000","message":"I think that it\u0027s no different with creating port with subnet in neutron, then attach the port to instance when booting.\n\nBooting instance with subnet is a shortcut for the above workflow.\n\nI\u0027m curious the case you mention, so I test it in my devstack.\n\nIf I use an ipv4 subnet to booting instance, the port will have two ip addresses(one ipv4 \u0026 one ipv6). If I use an ipv6 subnet, the port only have one ipv6 address.\n\nIf you means that when we use ipv4 subnet to create port, neutron will assign an additional ipv6 address to the port, it will cause the instance land in two subnets (one ipv4 \u0026 one ipv6).\n\nI don\u0027t know neutron too much, correct me if I\u0027m wrong.\n\nThe neutron behavior make me confused, but I will follow the neutron rule in the spec, because the port is created by neutron, or do you have some suggestion?","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":3217,"name":"Ian Wells","username":"ijw-ubuntu"},"change_message_id":"f20dc3446667f4543d907dd687f58c9927b849c9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":79,"context_line":"    * 400: If \u0027subnet_id\u0027 is not a uuid-like string, a BadRequest exception"},{"line_number":80,"context_line":"      will be raised."},{"line_number":81,"context_line":"    * 404: If \u0027subnet_id\u0027 don\u0027t match a subnet entry in neutron, a"},{"line_number":82,"context_line":"      SubnetNotFound exception will be raised."},{"line_number":83,"context_line":""},{"line_number":84,"context_line":"  * ``/v2.1/{project_id}/servers``"},{"line_number":85,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"1af86dd1_7037fdb0","line":82,"updated":"2015-06-12 18:28:13.000000000","message":"subnet_id *is present and*","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"cfa7572041ef82a78bfff335419686cb299f1229","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":79,"context_line":"    * 400: If \u0027subnet_id\u0027 is not a uuid-like string, a BadRequest exception"},{"line_number":80,"context_line":"      will be raised."},{"line_number":81,"context_line":"    * 404: If \u0027subnet_id\u0027 don\u0027t match a subnet entry in neutron, a"},{"line_number":82,"context_line":"      SubnetNotFound exception will be raised."},{"line_number":83,"context_line":""},{"line_number":84,"context_line":"  * ``/v2.1/{project_id}/servers``"},{"line_number":85,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"fa32b979_8bad9c8a","line":82,"in_reply_to":"1af86dd1_7037fdb0","updated":"2015-06-15 02:25:09.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":3217,"name":"Ian Wells","username":"ijw-ubuntu"},"change_message_id":"f20dc3446667f4543d907dd687f58c9927b849c9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":161,"context_line":"would been ignored, for example, we tried nova boot using a port_id that"},{"line_number":162,"context_line":"doesn\u0027t belong to a given network, the validation wasn\u0027t performed, the"},{"line_number":163,"context_line":"network_id would been override by the network_id of the port. Ignoring a"},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"redundant parameter can cause to a lot of confusion for users. So we decide"},{"line_number":165,"context_line":"to fix the confused behavior, when the specification is implemented, only"},{"line_number":166,"context_line":"following use cases are supported."},{"line_number":167,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"1af86dd1_500ac1d3","line":164,"updated":"2015-06-12 18:28:13.000000000","message":"I suggest you file a bug for this if you haven\u0027t already.","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"cfa7572041ef82a78bfff335419686cb299f1229","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":161,"context_line":"would been ignored, for example, we tried nova boot using a port_id that"},{"line_number":162,"context_line":"doesn\u0027t belong to a given network, the validation wasn\u0027t performed, the"},{"line_number":163,"context_line":"network_id would been override by the network_id of the port. Ignoring a"},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"redundant parameter can cause to a lot of confusion for users. So we decide"},{"line_number":165,"context_line":"to fix the confused behavior, when the specification is implemented, only"},{"line_number":166,"context_line":"following use cases are supported."},{"line_number":167,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"fa32b979_8be7dc3f","line":164,"in_reply_to":"1af86dd1_500ac1d3","updated":"2015-06-15 02:25:09.000000000","message":"Emm... I\u0027m not sure it\u0027s a bug, maybe just a API design style.\n\nI hope to make the API more reasonable, so list the reason at here, and improve it.","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":3217,"name":"Ian Wells","username":"ijw-ubuntu"},"change_message_id":"f20dc3446667f4543d907dd687f58c9927b849c9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":162,"context_line":"doesn\u0027t belong to a given network, the validation wasn\u0027t performed, the"},{"line_number":163,"context_line":"network_id would been override by the network_id of the port. Ignoring a"},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"redundant parameter can cause to a lot of confusion for users. So we decide"},{"line_number":165,"context_line":"to fix the confused behavior, when the specification is implemented, only"},{"line_number":166,"context_line":"following use cases are supported."},{"line_number":167,"context_line":""},{"line_number":168,"context_line":"* \u0027networks\u0027: [{\u0027uuid\u0027: \u0027xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx\u0027}]"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"1af86dd1_f0f9adc9","line":165,"updated":"2015-06-12 18:28:13.000000000","message":"You break backward compatibility if you do this, though I don\u0027t know if anyone minds too much.","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"cfa7572041ef82a78bfff335419686cb299f1229","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":162,"context_line":"doesn\u0027t belong to a given network, the validation wasn\u0027t performed, the"},{"line_number":163,"context_line":"network_id would been override by the network_id of the port. Ignoring a"},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"redundant parameter can cause to a lot of confusion for users. So we decide"},{"line_number":165,"context_line":"to fix the confused behavior, when the specification is implemented, only"},{"line_number":166,"context_line":"following use cases are supported."},{"line_number":167,"context_line":""},{"line_number":168,"context_line":"* \u0027networks\u0027: [{\u0027uuid\u0027: \u0027xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx\u0027}]"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"fa32b979_2b0ed034","line":165,"in_reply_to":"1af86dd1_f0f9adc9","updated":"2015-06-15 02:25:09.000000000","message":"I will add this feature in a new microversion, so it don\u0027t break backward compatibility, see NOTE section.","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":3217,"name":"Ian Wells","username":"ijw-ubuntu"},"change_message_id":"f20dc3446667f4543d907dd687f58c9927b849c9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":192,"context_line":"10.0.0.0/24, but the ip can\u0027t been used to create port, because it\u0027s in use."},{"line_number":193,"context_line":"There is no completed mechanism to check the availability of the ip between"},{"line_number":194,"context_line":"nova and neutron, so we can\u0027t solve this issue, and I don\u0027t think it belong the"},{"line_number":195,"context_line":"scope of the specification. We need better way to solve it in the future."},{"line_number":196,"context_line":""},{"line_number":197,"context_line":""},{"line_number":198,"context_line":"Security impact"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"1af86dd1_901719ed","line":195,"updated":"2015-06-12 18:28:13.000000000","message":"This whole paragraph talks about what happens with something that you have no intention of changing and isn\u0027t in scope.  Just remove it.  And file a bug, if you think current behaviour is wrong (though I think you\u0027ll get a VM in ERROR state, which is probably fine - this is a race condition anyway so a precheck doesn\u0027t guarantee that the address won\u0027t be free when you need it)","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"cfa7572041ef82a78bfff335419686cb299f1229","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":192,"context_line":"10.0.0.0/24, but the ip can\u0027t been used to create port, because it\u0027s in use."},{"line_number":193,"context_line":"There is no completed mechanism to check the availability of the ip between"},{"line_number":194,"context_line":"nova and neutron, so we can\u0027t solve this issue, and I don\u0027t think it belong the"},{"line_number":195,"context_line":"scope of the specification. We need better way to solve it in the future."},{"line_number":196,"context_line":""},{"line_number":197,"context_line":""},{"line_number":198,"context_line":"Security impact"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"fa32b979_2bb010f4","line":195,"in_reply_to":"1af86dd1_901719ed","updated":"2015-06-15 02:25:09.000000000","message":"Other reviewer ask questions about this in the above patch sets, so I hope to explain it in the spec in order to avoid duplicate questions.","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":3217,"name":"Ian Wells","username":"ijw-ubuntu"},"change_message_id":"f20dc3446667f4543d907dd687f58c9927b849c9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":210,"context_line":""},{"line_number":211,"context_line":"The related works in python-novaclient will also be added."},{"line_number":212,"context_line":"After this modification, user could create instances with \u0027subnet-id\u0027 specified"},{"line_number":213,"context_line":"like \u0027net-uuid\u0027 does via CLI."},{"line_number":214,"context_line":""},{"line_number":215,"context_line":"Performance Impact"},{"line_number":216,"context_line":"------------------"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"1af86dd1_10e20904","line":213,"updated":"2015-06-12 18:28:13.000000000","message":"subnet-uuid would be more consistent.  Not that this is in spec scope, just saying.","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"cfa7572041ef82a78bfff335419686cb299f1229","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":210,"context_line":""},{"line_number":211,"context_line":"The related works in python-novaclient will also be added."},{"line_number":212,"context_line":"After this modification, user could create instances with \u0027subnet-id\u0027 specified"},{"line_number":213,"context_line":"like \u0027net-uuid\u0027 does via CLI."},{"line_number":214,"context_line":""},{"line_number":215,"context_line":"Performance Impact"},{"line_number":216,"context_line":"------------------"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":10,"id":"fa32b979_6b94d836","line":213,"in_reply_to":"1af86dd1_10e20904","updated":"2015-06-15 02:25:09.000000000","message":"I plan to use \u0027subnet-id\u0027 in nova client and make it consistent with the nova API define.","commit_id":"dcbee6a9599d1983154eef51b1027c600a788873"},{"author":{"_account_id":782,"name":"John Garbutt","email":"john@johngarbutt.com","username":"johngarbutt"},"change_message_id":"f446c0ec7c05fa40cdab539d5b34247cc65ffe72","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":13,"context_line":"Currently the network info specified as part of server creation is limited to"},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"network-id, port-id, and ip address. When a network has multiple subnets then"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"we should be able to specify a subnet-id."},{"line_number":16,"context_line":""},{"line_number":17,"context_line":""},{"line_number":18,"context_line":"Problem description"},{"line_number":19,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":12,"id":"fa32b979_f482e0c7","line":16,"updated":"2015-06-22 12:14:57.000000000","message":"It would be good to mention it was approved in juno:\nhttp://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/juno/approved/selecting-subnet-when-creating-vm.html","commit_id":"e0119e5dcda790ad8007865795ef781fe7975f2c"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"3af783181ec1129aa2584ac0dcd0215cd003bb5b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":13,"context_line":"Currently the network info specified as part of server creation is limited to"},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"network-id, port-id, and ip address. When a network has multiple subnets then"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"we should be able to specify a subnet-id."},{"line_number":16,"context_line":""},{"line_number":17,"context_line":""},{"line_number":18,"context_line":"Problem description"},{"line_number":19,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":12,"id":"fa32b979_20277f13","line":16,"in_reply_to":"fa32b979_f482e0c7","updated":"2015-06-23 01:37:31.000000000","message":"Thank you, I will update it in next patch.","commit_id":"e0119e5dcda790ad8007865795ef781fe7975f2c"},{"author":{"_account_id":4656,"name":"Sean M. Collins","email":"sean@coreitpro.com","username":"scollins"},"change_message_id":"becb00efef235d81390868f113b40f18726e6bd3","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":31,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."},{"line_number":32,"context_line":"But this is not a convenient way. Moreover, this method is also not available"},{"line_number":33,"context_line":"for bulk instances creation."},{"line_number":34,"context_line":""},{"line_number":35,"context_line":"Use Cases"},{"line_number":36,"context_line":"---------"},{"line_number":37,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":13,"id":"fa32b979_165f2542","line":34,"updated":"2015-06-23 03:43:34.000000000","message":"How do we handle an instance where a Neutron network contains two subnets:\n\nOne IPv4 subnet that uses DHCP, and then an IPv6 subnet that is set with ipv6_address_mode \u003d \"slaac\" and ipv6_ra_mode \u003d \"slaac\" - the current behavior is to assign an IPv6 address to this instance so that it\u0027ll show up in API requests. The instance, when it attaches to the network will receive an ICMPv6 packet, and _will_ configure an IPv6 address.","commit_id":"7b9a22cd66c1857531ad9568c3195ca5ff9c4fff"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"9822c3ef536e3b90e2d3dfb30cc4a0db81fea3cb","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":31,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."},{"line_number":32,"context_line":"But this is not a convenient way. Moreover, this method is also not available"},{"line_number":33,"context_line":"for bulk instances creation."},{"line_number":34,"context_line":""},{"line_number":35,"context_line":"Use Cases"},{"line_number":36,"context_line":"---------"},{"line_number":37,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":13,"id":"fa32b979_4d58b3fa","line":34,"in_reply_to":"fa32b979_118c0f7e","updated":"2015-06-23 09:37:34.000000000","message":"@Sean, I talk with my friend(a neutron guy), we think that if we create port with ipv4 subnet_id, the port was created by neutron, and neutron assign both ipv4 and ipv6 address to the port, looks like a neutron bug. So he file a neutron bug, mark it here https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1467791 , wait to reply from neutron group.","commit_id":"7b9a22cd66c1857531ad9568c3195ca5ff9c4fff"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"22087e3a4d173c97d29171e4846e54a82d2b94e0","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":31,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."},{"line_number":32,"context_line":"But this is not a convenient way. Moreover, this method is also not available"},{"line_number":33,"context_line":"for bulk instances creation."},{"line_number":34,"context_line":""},{"line_number":35,"context_line":"Use Cases"},{"line_number":36,"context_line":"---------"},{"line_number":37,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":13,"id":"fa32b979_118c0f7e","line":34,"in_reply_to":"fa32b979_165f2542","updated":"2015-06-23 04:01:51.000000000","message":"Sorry, I had replied in patch set 10, I think neutron create port actually, nova just proxy the action, so I will follow the neutron rule in this spec, or you have some suggestions?\n\nhttps://review.openstack.org/#/c/169638/10/specs/liberty/approved/selecting-subnet-when-creating-vm.rst","commit_id":"7b9a22cd66c1857531ad9568c3195ca5ff9c4fff"},{"author":{"_account_id":4656,"name":"Sean M. Collins","email":"sean@coreitpro.com","username":"scollins"},"change_message_id":"d6497fff7f05413ef564196efe633d39367359fd","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":31,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."},{"line_number":32,"context_line":"But this is not a convenient way. Moreover, this method is also not available"},{"line_number":33,"context_line":"for bulk instances creation."},{"line_number":34,"context_line":""},{"line_number":35,"context_line":"Use Cases"},{"line_number":36,"context_line":"---------"},{"line_number":37,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":13,"id":"fa32b979_a9835355","line":34,"in_reply_to":"fa32b979_4d58b3fa","updated":"2015-06-23 18:14:30.000000000","message":"That behavior was consciously chosen - it is not a bug.","commit_id":"7b9a22cd66c1857531ad9568c3195ca5ff9c4fff"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"601fd629f4f84ce0d13018da41dd359bd3f3851d","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":31,"context_line":"You only could choose an ip address in one subnet and then create an instance."},{"line_number":32,"context_line":"But this is not a convenient way. Moreover, this method is also not available"},{"line_number":33,"context_line":"for bulk instances creation."},{"line_number":34,"context_line":""},{"line_number":35,"context_line":"Use Cases"},{"line_number":36,"context_line":"---------"},{"line_number":37,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":13,"id":"fa32b979_54525036","line":34,"in_reply_to":"fa32b979_a9835355","updated":"2015-06-24 03:14:31.000000000","message":"If it\u0027s a design behavior, I think we should follow the neutron rule in this spec. \n\nAims to clarify the neutron behavior, I will add the neutron spec at \u0027Proposed change\u0027 seaction, thank you @Sean.\n\nhttp://specs.openstack.org/openstack/neutron-specs/specs/kilo/multiple-ipv6-prefixes.html#proposed-change","commit_id":"7b9a22cd66c1857531ad9568c3195ca5ff9c4fff"},{"author":{"_account_id":782,"name":"John Garbutt","email":"john@johngarbutt.com","username":"johngarbutt"},"change_message_id":"4b03da60f7b664a04007f2121376189e72762400","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":71,"context_line":"Alternatives"},{"line_number":72,"context_line":"------------"},{"line_number":73,"context_line":""},{"line_number":74,"context_line":"None"},{"line_number":75,"context_line":""},{"line_number":76,"context_line":"Data model impact"},{"line_number":77,"context_line":"-----------------"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":14,"id":"ba3cc151_724ea797","line":74,"updated":"2015-07-01 10:37:05.000000000","message":"The alternative is to create your port up front, as we now recommend as the default approach.","commit_id":"7c2d80005b2ad377f07b7d43db0a9500fcf97150"},{"author":{"_account_id":13252,"name":"Dr. Jens Harbott","display_name":"Jens Harbott (frickler)","email":"frickler@offenerstapel.de","username":"jrosenboom"},"change_message_id":"a41ec91c467006ed72c18756522a47882c776271","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":188,"context_line":"* \u0027networks\u0027: [{\u0027uuid\u0027: \u0027xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx\u0027,"},{"line_number":189,"context_line":"                \u0027fixed_ip\u0027: \u0027***.***.***.***\u0027}]"},{"line_number":190,"context_line":""},{"line_number":191,"context_line":"* \u0027networks\u0027: [{\u0027subnet_id\u0027: \u0027yyyyyyyy-yyyy-yyyy-yyyy-yyyyyyyyyyyy\u0027}]"},{"line_number":192,"context_line":""},{"line_number":193,"context_line":"* \u0027networks\u0027: [{\u0027port\u0027: \u0027zzzzzzzz-zzzz-zzzz-zzzz-zzzzzzzzzzzz\u0027}]"},{"line_number":194,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":14,"id":"ba3cc151_b1c7bf44","line":191,"updated":"2015-06-29 09:43:09.000000000","message":"I think that specifying the network only indirectly via the subnet_id is confusing, it may not even be clear whether it is guaranteed to be unambigous. So why not keep the scheme similar to the fixed_ip case and just use the subnet_id as an additional parameter? I.e.\n\n* \u0027networks\u0027: [{\u0027uuid\u0027: \u0027xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx\u0027,\n    {\u0027subnet_id\u0027: \u0027yyyyyyyy-yyyy-yyyy-yyyy-yyyyyyyyyyyy\u0027}]\n\nThis would also be in line with how the options for the neutron port-create command look like.","commit_id":"7c2d80005b2ad377f07b7d43db0a9500fcf97150"},{"author":{"_account_id":8276,"name":"kiwik","email":"chenrui.momo@gmail.com","username":"kiwik"},"change_message_id":"a054bf335c97fe12626e3e7d02ad3179602ae7e4","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":188,"context_line":"* \u0027networks\u0027: [{\u0027uuid\u0027: \u0027xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx\u0027,"},{"line_number":189,"context_line":"                \u0027fixed_ip\u0027: \u0027***.***.***.***\u0027}]"},{"line_number":190,"context_line":""},{"line_number":191,"context_line":"* \u0027networks\u0027: [{\u0027subnet_id\u0027: \u0027yyyyyyyy-yyyy-yyyy-yyyy-yyyyyyyyyyyy\u0027}]"},{"line_number":192,"context_line":""},{"line_number":193,"context_line":"* \u0027networks\u0027: [{\u0027port\u0027: \u0027zzzzzzzz-zzzz-zzzz-zzzz-zzzzzzzzzzzz\u0027}]"},{"line_number":194,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":14,"id":"ba3cc151_031e3a63","line":191,"in_reply_to":"ba3cc151_b1c7bf44","updated":"2015-06-30 03:33:23.000000000","message":"subnet_id is a unique uuid parameter, it represent a neutron subnet without ambiguity. I don\u0027t use args format network_id\u0026subnet_id, because I don\u0027t want to check the conflict between network_id and subnet_id, think about a case that subnet_id and network_id are present at the same time, but subnet don\u0027t belong the network.","commit_id":"7c2d80005b2ad377f07b7d43db0a9500fcf97150"}]}