)]}'
{"specs/newton/approved/network-requested-vif-model.rst":[{"author":{"_account_id":1779,"name":"Daniel Berrange","email":"berrange@redhat.com","username":"berrange"},"change_message_id":"f486c7b91050288e1cecbe531e604c7aa91dd3f9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":38,"context_line":"* A user that needs to deploy different guests that uses different network"},{"line_number":39,"context_line":"  drivers has to build one image per driver."},{"line_number":40,"context_line":"* A guest using this image is limited to using only one network driver even if"},{"line_number":41,"context_line":"  it\u0027s using multiple network attachment."},{"line_number":42,"context_line":""},{"line_number":43,"context_line":"This blueprint propose to address these shortcomings by adding a boot"},{"line_number":44,"context_line":"parameter option for specifying an optional VIF model for each requested"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"5a18252c_912539c4","line":41,"range":{"start_line":41,"start_character":40,"end_line":41,"end_character":41},"updated":"2016-04-12 13:13:47.000000000","message":"Both of these points just come down to \"Nova doesn\u0027t allow you to configure every aspect of hardware\" which is entirely by design. IOW they\u0027re not really describing any real world problem - they\u0027re just describing how cloud software doesn\u0027t provide the same level of configurability as traditional data center virt.\n\nYou\u0027ll need to actually provide a description of real world problems this causes if you want to convince us that this is a good idea. It\u0027ll have to be pretty compelling problems, because as a general rule we really very much want to *AVOID* adding this kind of detailed hardware configurability into Nova, as it makes it portability across different Nova deployments much harder","commit_id":"a30008d798da4ee28190e1c5e63b42e3a1eeaeca"}]}