Chiradeep, Likitha, My take is that we need to support both kinds of networks (persistent as well as non-persistent). Also, I don't think we can have this as a zone-wide behavior because not all networks in a zone would need to be persistent.
For example, if you are deploying a multi-tier application, you might only want the DB tier to be persistent. Regards, Manan Shah On 1/3/13 11:31 PM, "Ram Ganesh" <ram.gan...@citrix.com> wrote: >Does it make sense to introduce the flag(persistent) as part of >NetworkOffering? > >Thanks, >RamG > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Likitha Shetty [mailto:likitha.she...@citrix.com] >> Sent: 03 January 2013 18:05 >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM >> >> Please find my answers and queries inline. >> >> Thank you, >> Likitha >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com] >> > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:03 PM >> > To: CloudStack DeveloperList >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM >> > >> > So: >> > 1. There needs to be both kinds of networks available (persistent as >> well as non- >> > persistent) in the same zone? >> Yes >> >> > From an end-user perspective this is going to be confusing since she >> has not >> > been exposed to this internal state before (and generally the end- >> user is not >> > aware of the internal state of the infrastructure). >> +1. Say we have a new API 'ProvisionNetwork' to provision a network >> that has been created by the user. Since the user is not aware of the >> internal state of a network it would be confusing for the user to >> understand the difference b/w the 2 API's, CreateNetwork and >> ProvisionNetwork. >> >> > Is it OK to make this behavior >> > zone-wide, I.e., on every guest network? >> But this would mean having all networks (in the zone which has this >> behavior enabled) in an implemented state, even if a network has no >> physical device or VM deployed in it. This is changing the default CS >> behavior of not having resources allocated to a network if the network >> doesn't require it. Is that acceptable ? >> >> > >> > >> > On 12/31/12 10:19 AM, "Manan Shah" <manan.s...@citrix.com> wrote: >> > >> > >Thanks Likitha for picking up this requirement. You have correctly >> > >interpreted the requirements. >> > > >> > >Regards, >> > >Manan Shah >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >On 12/31/12 2:52 AM, "Likitha Shetty" <likitha.she...@citrix.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > >>Hi, >> > >> >> > >>I would like to work on the proposed feature. >> > >>Restating the requirement. Currently in CloudStack when a user >> creates >> > >>a network, a db entry for that network is made, a VLAN ID is >> assigned >> > >>and the network is created only when the first VM on that network >> is >> > created. >> > >>With this feature CloudStack should allow users to provision the >> > >>created network i.e. assign a VLAN ID and implement the network >> > >>without having to deploy VM's on that network. >> > >> >> > >>Comments/Suggestions on the requirement ? >> > >> >> > >>Thank you, >> > >>Likitha >> > >> >> > >>-----Original Message----- >> > >>From: Manan Shah [mailto:manan.s...@citrix.com] >> > >>Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:01 AM >> > >>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> > >>Subject: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM >> > >> >> > >>Hi, >> > >> >> > >>I would like to propose a new feature for persistent networks >> without >> > >>running VMs. I have created a JIRA ticket and provided the >> > >>requirements at the following location. Please provide feedback on >> the >> > requirements. >> > >> >> > >>JIRA Ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-706 >> > >>Requirements: >> > >> >>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Persistent+Net >> w >> > >>ork >> > >>s >> > >> >> > >>Regards, >> > >>Manan Shah >> > >> >> > > >
