Folks please pass on comments if any, otherwise it is assumed that the spec is approved by the community
> -----Original Message----- > From: Anthony Xu [mailto:xuefei...@citrix.com] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 3:53 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Security Groups Isolation in Advanced Zone > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Isolation+based+on+ > Security+Groups+in+Advance+zone > > > This is upgraded spec , > Compared to original one, following are major changes > > 1. SG enabled is zone wide parameter, if this zone is SG enabled, all guest > networks in this zone must be SG enabled. > 2. support all shared network types, includes zone-wide shared network, > domain-wide shared networks and account-specific share networks 3. support > multiple SG enabled networks in one SG enabled zone. > 4. VM can be on multiple SG enabled networks 5. SG rules apply to all NICs > for > a VM 6. support both KVM and XenServer. > > Comments, question, suggestion and flame are welcome! > > > Thanks, > Anthony > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Cahill [mailto:dcah...@midokura.jp] > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 5:29 PM > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Security Groups Isolation in Advanced Zone > > > > Hi Anthony, > > > > Understood - thanks for the update. > > > > Dave. > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Anthony Xu <xuefei...@citrix.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > For 4.1 , this feature is only for shared network on advanced zone, > > both > > > XenServer and KVM are supported. > > > Will upgrade FS soon. > > > > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Dave Cahill [mailto:dcah...@midokura.jp] > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:33 AM > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Security Groups Isolation in Advanced Zone > > > > > > > > Hi Manan, > > > > > > > > I'm interested in this feature - when (roughly) are you planning > > > > to commit this to master? > > > > > > > > Are you planning the full list of features from your requirements > > doc > > > > (including support for Adavnced, Isolated networks) in 4.1? > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > Dave. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Manan Shah <manan.s...@citrix.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes, FS definitely needs updating. Please also look at the > > "Future" > > > > > section of Alena's FS. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Manan Shah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/4/13 1:57 PM, "Prasanna Santhanam" > > > > <prasanna.santha...@citrix.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 12:16:44AM +0530, Manan Shah wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Chip, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> As Alena had mentioned in her FS, her focus was to initially > > > > support > > > > > >>only > > > > > >> the functionality that was enabled in CS 2.2. She had created > > a > > > > section > > > > > >>in > > > > > >> her FS that talked about Future release plans. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> My requirements page covers requirements for both, the CS 2.2 > > use > > > > case > > > > > >>as > > > > > >> well as the broader use case. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Let me know if you have additional questions. > > > > > >> > > > > > >Thanks - Alena's FS lists only support for KVM while you have > > listed > > > > > >support for XenServer and KVM. Guess the FS needs updating? > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > >Prasanna., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Thanks, > > > > Dave. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Dave.
