thanks for bringing up this datatypes, I was not aware of them. Are we allowed/supposed to use vendor specific types if appropriate to? note: using this type will enforce a validity, right, but that does not mean that much (from other code perspective) since one's still obliged to do all checking on all other app layers avoiding calls from one layer to another with invalid data (calls to backend are expensive, call to db are even more expensive considering lot of users working simultaneously).

and will allow functionality such as comparison (is required). maybe I do not understand this. Which mac ranges comparison is currently required and not possible? Either I do not get it or I'm not aware of that use case.

m. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Moti Asayag" <masayag@redhat.com> To: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> Cc: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits@redhat.com>, users@ovirt.org, devel@ovirt.org Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:21:50 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC ----- Original Message -----

From: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> To: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits@redhat.com> Cc: users@ovirt.org, devel@ovirt.org Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 9:14:38 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC

Hi, you're right, I do know about these problems. THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT A FINAL CODE.

Why I did it this way: I come from agile environment. This supposed to be FIRST increment. Not last. I hate waterfall style of work -- almighty solution in one swing. I'd like to make sure, that main part, that core principle is valid and approved. Making gui look nice is marginal. So it is data structure for first increment. We can definitely think of thousands of improvements, BUT this RFC already include more than 10 patch sets and NO core reviews. How can I know, that others will approve this and I'm not completely wrong?

about UX: it's wrong, but just fine for first increment. It can be used somehow and that just sufficient. Note: even with table to enter each from-to range there can be validation problem needed to be handled. Gui can changed to better one, when we know, that this feature works. But meantime others can test this feature functionality via this ugly, but very fast to write, gui!

about DB: I'm aware of DB normalization, and about all implications my "design" has. Yes, storing it in one varchar column is DB (very heavily used) antipattern, just fine for first increment and very easy to fix.

There is another motivation for using a normalized data, specifically for mac addresses - using the MAC addresses type [1] will enforce validity of the input and will allow functionality such as comparison (is required). [1] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/datatype-net-types.html

If it's up to me, I'd like to wait for approval of 'core' part of this change (lets call it spike), and finish remaining 'marginalities' after it. (just to make myself clear proper db design ISN'T marginal measuring it using absolute scale, but it IS very marginal related to situation where most of code wasn't approved/reviewed yet).

m.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits@redhat.com> To: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org, users@ovirt.org Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:22:04 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC

Now for users@ovirt.org indeed.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits@redhat.com> To: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> Cc: users@ovrit.org, devel@ovirt.org Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:29:46 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC

Martin,

I'd like to propose a different approach on how the ranges to be defined and stored.

Discussing this feature with Moti raised the alternative UX design: Defining ranges could be added as a left-tab on create DC dialog and a sub-tab on an existing DC. It would be a table of start and end address fields and we can add a calculated # of MACs in the range and/or summary for the DC. Also that will make string parsing unneeded, prevent possible user mistakes in the string format and make possible validating every field of the range on the UI side easier. As you can see on the screenshot you've attached even a single range doesn't fit to the text box. In case of multiple ranges managing them in a single line textbox would be very uncomfortable.

A range is an object with at least 2 members (start and end). And we have few of these for each data center. Storing a collection of the objects in a single field in a relational DB seems a bit awkward to me. That has few disadvantages: 1. is not normalized 2. make data validation nearly impossible 3. make querying the data very difficult 4. is restraining our ability to extend the object (e.g. a user might like to give a description to a range) So IMHO a satellite table with the FK to storage_pool would be a more robust design.

Best regards, ____________________ Yevgeny Zaspitsky Senior Software Engineer Red Hat Israel

----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> To: users@ovirt.org, devel@ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:59:44 AM Subject: [ovirt-devel] new feature

Hi,

I'd like to notify you about new feature, which allows to specify distinct MAC pools, currently one per data center. http://www.ovirt.org/Scoped_MacPoolManager

any comments/proposals for improvement are very welcomed. Martin. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Hi, We would like to propose a little bit better solution from user experience side. We should have 3 fields for each range: 1) Start range 2) End range 3) Number of MACs When you have to fill in "End range" or "Number of MACs" (when start range is mandatory). And the 3rd field will be filled in automatically according to others. For example: 1) If "Start range" is 00:00:00:00:00:01 and "Number of MACs" is 5 then "End range" should be filled in with 00:00:00:00:00:05. 2) If "Start range" is 00:00:00:00:00:01 and "End range" is 00:00:00:00:00:05, then "Number of MACs" should be filled in with 5. For update: "End range" and "Number of MACs" should be updated automatically as well, so if you update "End range" the "Number of MACs" should be updated and vice versa. For adding several MAC pool ranges for DC we can use the "+" or "-" sign as we do for adding VNIC profile or Labels field. Regards, Genadi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Moti Asayag" <masayag@redhat.com> To: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org, users@ovirt.org Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 9:21:50 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC ----- Original Message -----

From: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> To: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits@redhat.com> Cc: users@ovirt.org, devel@ovirt.org Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 9:14:38 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC

Hi, you're right, I do know about these problems. THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT A FINAL CODE.

Why I did it this way: I come from agile environment. This supposed to be FIRST increment. Not last. I hate waterfall style of work -- almighty solution in one swing. I'd like to make sure, that main part, that core principle is valid and approved. Making gui look nice is marginal. So it is data structure for first increment. We can definitely think of thousands of improvements, BUT this RFC already include more than 10 patch sets and NO core reviews. How can I know, that others will approve this and I'm not completely wrong?

about UX: it's wrong, but just fine for first increment. It can be used somehow and that just sufficient. Note: even with table to enter each from-to range there can be validation problem needed to be handled. Gui can changed to better one, when we know, that this feature works. But meantime others can test this feature functionality via this ugly, but very fast to write, gui!

about DB: I'm aware of DB normalization, and about all implications my "design" has. Yes, storing it in one varchar column is DB (very heavily used) antipattern, just fine for first increment and very easy to fix.

There is another motivation for using a normalized data, specifically for mac addresses - using the MAC addresses type [1] will enforce validity of the input and will allow functionality such as comparison (is required). [1] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/datatype-net-types.html

If it's up to me, I'd like to wait for approval of 'core' part of this change (lets call it spike), and finish remaining 'marginalities' after it. (just to make myself clear proper db design ISN'T marginal measuring it using absolute scale, but it IS very marginal related to situation where most of code wasn't approved/reviewed yet).

m.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits@redhat.com> To: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org, users@ovirt.org Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:22:04 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC

Now for users@ovirt.org indeed.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits@redhat.com> To: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> Cc: users@ovrit.org, devel@ovirt.org Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:29:46 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC

Martin,

I'd like to propose a different approach on how the ranges to be defined and stored.

Discussing this feature with Moti raised the alternative UX design: Defining ranges could be added as a left-tab on create DC dialog and a sub-tab on an existing DC. It would be a table of start and end address fields and we can add a calculated # of MACs in the range and/or summary for the DC. Also that will make string parsing unneeded, prevent possible user mistakes in the string format and make possible validating every field of the range on the UI side easier. As you can see on the screenshot you've attached even a single range doesn't fit to the text box. In case of multiple ranges managing them in a single line textbox would be very uncomfortable.

A range is an object with at least 2 members (start and end). And we have few of these for each data center. Storing a collection of the objects in a single field in a relational DB seems a bit awkward to me. That has few disadvantages: 1. is not normalized 2. make data validation nearly impossible 3. make querying the data very difficult 4. is restraining our ability to extend the object (e.g. a user might like to give a description to a range) So IMHO a satellite table with the FK to storage_pool would be a more robust design.

Best regards, ____________________ Yevgeny Zaspitsky Senior Software Engineer Red Hat Israel

----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> To: users@ovirt.org, devel@ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:59:44 AM Subject: [ovirt-devel] new feature

Hi,

I'd like to notify you about new feature, which allows to specify distinct MAC pools, currently one per data center. http://www.ovirt.org/Scoped_MacPoolManager

any comments/proposals for improvement are very welcomed. Martin. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Hi, thanks for your input, I'll try to satisfy your request to be able to set range 'width' either by 'end boundary' or 'mac count' in gui design. Prior to that there are more fundamental decisions to be made -- like whether the pool definition is mandatory or optional, and how this influence the app for upgrading users. I'm pushing the idea of optional definition with one global pool as a fallback. And like I said in previous emails, from this point of view is gui design marginal, since we do not know what exact things should be displayed there(gui will be little bit different for optional pool definition). This is to be decided this week, after that we can discuss final design of gui. m. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Genadi Chereshnya" <gcheresh@redhat.com> To: "Moti Asayag" <masayag@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org, users@ovirt.org, "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com>, "Martin Pavlik" <mpavlik@redhat.com> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:47:11 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC Hi, We would like to propose a little bit better solution from user experience side. We should have 3 fields for each range: 1) Start range 2) End range 3) Number of MACs When you have to fill in "End range" or "Number of MACs" (when start range is mandatory). And the 3rd field will be filled in automatically according to others. For example: 1) If "Start range" is 00:00:00:00:00:01 and "Number of MACs" is 5 then "End range" should be filled in with 00:00:00:00:00:05. 2) If "Start range" is 00:00:00:00:00:01 and "End range" is 00:00:00:00:00:05, then "Number of MACs" should be filled in with 5. For update: "End range" and "Number of MACs" should be updated automatically as well, so if you update "End range" the "Number of MACs" should be updated and vice versa. For adding several MAC pool ranges for DC we can use the "+" or "-" sign as we do for adding VNIC profile or Labels field. Regards, Genadi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Moti Asayag" <masayag@redhat.com> To: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org, users@ovirt.org Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 9:21:50 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC ----- Original Message -----

From: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> To: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits@redhat.com> Cc: users@ovirt.org, devel@ovirt.org Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 9:14:38 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC

Hi, you're right, I do know about these problems. THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT A FINAL CODE.

Why I did it this way: I come from agile environment. This supposed to be FIRST increment. Not last. I hate waterfall style of work -- almighty solution in one swing. I'd like to make sure, that main part, that core principle is valid and approved. Making gui look nice is marginal. So it is data structure for first increment. We can definitely think of thousands of improvements, BUT this RFC already include more than 10 patch sets and NO core reviews. How can I know, that others will approve this and I'm not completely wrong?

about UX: it's wrong, but just fine for first increment. It can be used somehow and that just sufficient. Note: even with table to enter each from-to range there can be validation problem needed to be handled. Gui can changed to better one, when we know, that this feature works. But meantime others can test this feature functionality via this ugly, but very fast to write, gui!

about DB: I'm aware of DB normalization, and about all implications my "design" has. Yes, storing it in one varchar column is DB (very heavily used) antipattern, just fine for first increment and very easy to fix.

There is another motivation for using a normalized data, specifically for mac addresses - using the MAC addresses type [1] will enforce validity of the input and will allow functionality such as comparison (is required). [1] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/datatype-net-types.html

If it's up to me, I'd like to wait for approval of 'core' part of this change (lets call it spike), and finish remaining 'marginalities' after it. (just to make myself clear proper db design ISN'T marginal measuring it using absolute scale, but it IS very marginal related to situation where most of code wasn't approved/reviewed yet).

m.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits@redhat.com> To: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org, users@ovirt.org Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:22:04 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC

Now for users@ovirt.org indeed.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits@redhat.com> To: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> Cc: users@ovrit.org, devel@ovirt.org Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:29:46 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC

Martin,

I'd like to propose a different approach on how the ranges to be defined and stored.

Discussing this feature with Moti raised the alternative UX design: Defining ranges could be added as a left-tab on create DC dialog and a sub-tab on an existing DC. It would be a table of start and end address fields and we can add a calculated # of MACs in the range and/or summary for the DC. Also that will make string parsing unneeded, prevent possible user mistakes in the string format and make possible validating every field of the range on the UI side easier. As you can see on the screenshot you've attached even a single range doesn't fit to the text box. In case of multiple ranges managing them in a single line textbox would be very uncomfortable.

A range is an object with at least 2 members (start and end). And we have few of these for each data center. Storing a collection of the objects in a single field in a relational DB seems a bit awkward to me. That has few disadvantages: 1. is not normalized 2. make data validation nearly impossible 3. make querying the data very difficult 4. is restraining our ability to extend the object (e.g. a user might like to give a description to a range) So IMHO a satellite table with the FK to storage_pool would be a more robust design.

Best regards, ____________________ Yevgeny Zaspitsky Senior Software Engineer Red Hat Israel

----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> To: users@ovirt.org, devel@ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:59:44 AM Subject: [ovirt-devel] new feature

Hi,

I'd like to notify you about new feature, which allows to specify distinct MAC pools, currently one per data center. http://www.ovirt.org/Scoped_MacPoolManager

any comments/proposals for improvement are very welcomed. Martin. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

ad 1) mine thinking was the same. If it's optional, then upgrade process is: 'you do not have to do anything', which seemed best to me. ad 2) yes, this has to be reflected in gui. Currently in business layer there are checks which do not let you use multicast address (exception is thrown when there is such attempt -- this is appropriate from mac pool perspective). When user specified mac ranges containing multicast address, this mac address is present in pool (due to implementation restriction), but it is flagged as used, so system never assigns it. And if user tried to do it by hand, it will fail, like I said. m. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Genadi Chereshnya" <gcheresh@redhat.com> To: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> Cc: "Moti Asayag" <masayag@redhat.com>, devel@ovirt.org, users@ovirt.org, "Martin Pavlik" <mpavlik@redhat.com> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 10:12:06 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC 1) In our opinion the pool definition should be optional. We should preserve the existing behavior. It will be useful especially for the upgrade scenarios. 2) As well for the "Number of MACs" we proposed earlier you should take into account the multicast addresses (if they are in the range) and to reduce them from the count of "Number of MACs" Genadi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> To: "Genadi Chereshnya" <gcheresh@redhat.com> Cc: "Moti Asayag" <masayag@redhat.com>, devel@ovirt.org, users@ovirt.org, "Martin Pavlik" <mpavlik@redhat.com> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 9:59:06 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC Hi, thanks for your input, I'll try to satisfy your request to be able to set range 'width' either by 'end boundary' or 'mac count' in gui design. Prior to that there are more fundamental decisions to be made -- like whether the pool definition is mandatory or optional, and how this influence the app for upgrading users. I'm pushing the idea of optional definition with one global pool as a fallback. And like I said in previous emails, from this point of view is gui design marginal, since we do not know what exact things should be displayed there(gui will be little bit different for optional pool definition). This is to be decided this week, after that we can discuss final design of gui. m. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Genadi Chereshnya" <gcheresh@redhat.com> To: "Moti Asayag" <masayag@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org, users@ovirt.org, "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com>, "Martin Pavlik" <mpavlik@redhat.com> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:47:11 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC Hi, We would like to propose a little bit better solution from user experience side. We should have 3 fields for each range: 1) Start range 2) End range 3) Number of MACs When you have to fill in "End range" or "Number of MACs" (when start range is mandatory). And the 3rd field will be filled in automatically according to others. For example: 1) If "Start range" is 00:00:00:00:00:01 and "Number of MACs" is 5 then "End range" should be filled in with 00:00:00:00:00:05. 2) If "Start range" is 00:00:00:00:00:01 and "End range" is 00:00:00:00:00:05, then "Number of MACs" should be filled in with 5. For update: "End range" and "Number of MACs" should be updated automatically as well, so if you update "End range" the "Number of MACs" should be updated and vice versa. For adding several MAC pool ranges for DC we can use the "+" or "-" sign as we do for adding VNIC profile or Labels field. Regards, Genadi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Moti Asayag" <masayag@redhat.com> To: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org, users@ovirt.org Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 9:21:50 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC ----- Original Message -----

From: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> To: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits@redhat.com> Cc: users@ovirt.org, devel@ovirt.org Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 9:14:38 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC

Hi, you're right, I do know about these problems. THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT A FINAL CODE.

Why I did it this way: I come from agile environment. This supposed to be FIRST increment. Not last. I hate waterfall style of work -- almighty solution in one swing. I'd like to make sure, that main part, that core principle is valid and approved. Making gui look nice is marginal. So it is data structure for first increment. We can definitely think of thousands of improvements, BUT this RFC already include more than 10 patch sets and NO core reviews. How can I know, that others will approve this and I'm not completely wrong?

about UX: it's wrong, but just fine for first increment. It can be used somehow and that just sufficient. Note: even with table to enter each from-to range there can be validation problem needed to be handled. Gui can changed to better one, when we know, that this feature works. But meantime others can test this feature functionality via this ugly, but very fast to write, gui!

about DB: I'm aware of DB normalization, and about all implications my "design" has. Yes, storing it in one varchar column is DB (very heavily used) antipattern, just fine for first increment and very easy to fix.

There is another motivation for using a normalized data, specifically for mac addresses - using the MAC addresses type [1] will enforce validity of the input and will allow functionality such as comparison (is required). [1] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/datatype-net-types.html

If it's up to me, I'd like to wait for approval of 'core' part of this change (lets call it spike), and finish remaining 'marginalities' after it. (just to make myself clear proper db design ISN'T marginal measuring it using absolute scale, but it IS very marginal related to situation where most of code wasn't approved/reviewed yet).

m.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits@redhat.com> To: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org, users@ovirt.org Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:22:04 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC

Now for users@ovirt.org indeed.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits@redhat.com> To: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> Cc: users@ovrit.org, devel@ovirt.org Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:29:46 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC

Martin,

I'd like to propose a different approach on how the ranges to be defined and stored.

Discussing this feature with Moti raised the alternative UX design: Defining ranges could be added as a left-tab on create DC dialog and a sub-tab on an existing DC. It would be a table of start and end address fields and we can add a calculated # of MACs in the range and/or summary for the DC. Also that will make string parsing unneeded, prevent possible user mistakes in the string format and make possible validating every field of the range on the UI side easier. As you can see on the screenshot you've attached even a single range doesn't fit to the text box. In case of multiple ranges managing them in a single line textbox would be very uncomfortable.

A range is an object with at least 2 members (start and end). And we have few of these for each data center. Storing a collection of the objects in a single field in a relational DB seems a bit awkward to me. That has few disadvantages: 1. is not normalized 2. make data validation nearly impossible 3. make querying the data very difficult 4. is restraining our ability to extend the object (e.g. a user might like to give a description to a range) So IMHO a satellite table with the FK to storage_pool would be a more robust design.

Best regards, ____________________ Yevgeny Zaspitsky Senior Software Engineer Red Hat Israel

----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha@redhat.com> To: users@ovirt.org, devel@ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:59:44 AM Subject: [ovirt-devel] new feature

Hi,

I'd like to notify you about new feature, which allows to specify distinct MAC pools, currently one per data center. http://www.ovirt.org/Scoped_MacPoolManager

any comments/proposals for improvement are very welcomed. Martin. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users