haha, i know you well enough daan to know how to read your emails. :P *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer
*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > that came out wrong, I mean You are right! > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > thanks Will, That is a bummer and a discouragement. > > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Will Stevens <williamstev...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Ws: Inline > >> > >> On Apr 20, 2016 8:24 AM, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > 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? > >> > >> Every vpc can use the same ip space. Think 10.1.1.1/24. When using an > >> external hardware device with an isolated guest network, the network > guru > >> ensures that two networks do not have overlapping ip space, so that > would > >> have to get added to vpcs as well. > >> > > >> > 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? > >> > > >> It means you would have to have a network appliance per vpc and they > can't > >> be shared between multiple networks. > >> > >> My only point is that there are a lot of implications in this suggestion > >> which need to be thought through. It is not going to be as easy as > people > >> may think. A bunch of functionality will have to be added to the vpcs > and > >> a > >> lot of plugins will have to be rewritten. > >> > > >> > > 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Daan > > > > > > -- > Daan >
