Port ranges - restricting opening and closing ranges

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

+1 to Mark's point. Handling exact matches is much easier, and does
not prevent a fancier feature later, if there's ever the need.

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Mark Ramm-Christensen (Canonical.com)
<mark.ramm-christensen at canonical.com> wrote:
> My belief is that as long as the error messages are clear, and it is easy to
> close 8000-9000 and then open 8000-8499 and 8600-9000, we are fine.    Of
> course it is "nicer" if we can do that automatically for you, but I don't
> see why we can't add that later, and I think there is a value in keeping a
> port-range as an atomic data-object either way.
>
> --Mark Ramm
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Domas Monkus <domas.monkus at canonical.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> me and Matthew Williams are working on support for port ranges in juju.
>> There is one question that the networking model document does not answer
>> explicitly and the simplicity (or complexity) of the implementation depends
>> greatly on that.
>>
>> Should we only allow units to close exactly the same port ranges that they
>> have opened? That is, if a unit opens the port range [8000-9000], can it
>> later close ports [8500-8600], effectively splitting the previously opened
>> port range in half?
>>
>> Domas
>>
>> --
>> Juju-dev mailing list
>> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>
>
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>



-- 

gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net