On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Will Stevens <williamstev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure that is a good idea. There are a LOT of implications with this > idea. > > For example, many hardware appliances can not handle overlapping ip space > between networks. Because of this they can't be implemented in a vpc, only > isolated guest networks. > Why is this a problem in VPC specifically, Will? Or more to the point what do you mean by overlap? Even if a vpc would contain any kind of overlap, it would still mean that those pieces of hardware can handle only one tier. the implemetation of that tier would not matter, would it? > I know there are a lot more examples like this, so it would be a dramatic rewrite of a lot of code to make it work. > Nice, let's go. (pun intended only for those that want to see it) > On Apr 20, 2016 12:49 AM, "Koushik Das" <koushik....@accelerite.com> > wrote: > > Another way to look at it would be to make isolated network a special case > of VPC (having a single tier). > I would love to see that. > > -Koushik > > ________________________________________ > From: Nick LIVENS <nick.liv...@nuagenetworks.net> > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:46 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: [DISCUSS] Network offerings for Isolated Networks / VPCs > > Hi all, > > Currently, there is no reliable way to tell whether an offering was created > for an Isolated Network or for tiers in a VPC. This is determined based on > providers. (ConfigurationManagerImpl.isOfferingForVpc) > > In the UI, you have the possibility to check a flag for "VPC" during > creation of a network offering. This flag changes the list of providers per > service. However, this flag does not get sent to the backend, and is not > persisted as a result. > > It is possible to create a network offering that was originally meant for > VPCs, but without using any of those providers which results in a network > offering that can't be used by VPCs because of this check. This is very > confusing for an end user, and is actually wrong. > > Short term, I suggest we persist this flag "forvpc" in order to determine > whether a network offering is meant for VPCs or Isolated Networks. > > Long term, we might want to rethink this implementation to a more generic > solution to make network offerings usable for both Isolated Networks and > VPCs at once, if possible. > > What do you guys think? > > Kind regards, > Nick Livens > > > > DISCLAIMER > ========== > This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is > the property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is intended > only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If > you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, > copy, print, distribute or use this message. If you have received this > communication in error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of > this message. Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any > liability for virus infected mails. > -- Daan
