Dag, I'll try that, but how to implement per-network vm bandwidth is still open question? How it could be tackled?
пт, 8 июн. 2018 г., 15:32 Dag Sonstebo <dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com>: > Hi Ivan, > > Not quite – “advanced zone with security group” allows you to have > multiple “basic” type networks isolated within their own VLANs and with > security groups isolation between VMs / accounts. The VR only does > DNS/DHCP, not GW/NAT. > > Regards, > Dag Sonstebo > Cloud Architect > ShapeBlue > > On 08/06/2018, 14:26, "Ivan Kudryavtsev" <kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com> wrote: > > Hi, Dag. Not exactly. Advanced zone uses VR as a GW with SNAT/DNAT > which is > not quite good for public cloud in my case. Despite that it really > solves > the problem. But I would like to have it as simple as possible, > without VR > as a GW and xNAT. > > пт, 8 июн. 2018 г., 15:21 Dag Sonstebo <dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com>: > > > Wido / Ivan – I’m probably missing something – but is the feature > you are > > looking for not the same functionality we currently have in > “advanced zones > > with security groups”? > > > > Regards, > > Dag Sonstebo > > Cloud Architect > > ShapeBlue > > > > On 08/06/2018, 14:14, "Ivan Kudryavtsev" <kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Wido, I also very interested in similar deployment, especially > > combined > > with the capability of setting different network bandwidth for > > different > > networks, like > > 10.0.0.0/8 intra dc with 1g bandwidth per vm and white > ipv4/ipv6 with > > regular bandwidth management. But it seem it takes very big > redesign > > of VM > > settings and VR redesign is also required. > > > > When I tried to investigate if it possible with ACS basic > network, > > didn't > > succeed with any relevant information. > > > > > > пт, 8 июн. 2018 г., 14:56 Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl>: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am looking into supporting multiple Physical Networks inside > onze > > > Basic Networking zone. > > > > > > First: The reason we use Basic Networking is the simplicity > and the > > fact > > > that our (Juniper) routers can do the routing and not the VR. > > > > > > ALL our VMs have external IPv4/IPv6 addresses and we do not > use NAT > > > anywhere. > > > > > > But right now a Hypervisor has a single VLAN/POD going to it > > terminated > > > on 'cloudbr0' using vlan://untagged. > > > > > > But to better utilize our physical hardware it would be great > it > > Basic > > > Networking would support multiple physical networks using VLAN > > separation. > > > > > > For example: > > > > > > - PhysicalNetwork1: VLAN 100 > > > - PhysicalNetwork2: VLAN 101 > > > - PhysicalNetwork3: VLAN 102 > > > > > > I've been looking into DirectAttached with Advanced > Networking, but I > > > couldn't find any reference to it on how that exactly works. > > > > > > Right now for our use-case Basic Networking with multiple > Physical > > > Networks would work best for us. > > > > > > Has anybody looked at this or has any insight of the problems > we > > might > > > run in to? > > > > > > Wido > > > > > > > > > > > dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com > > www.shapeblue.com > > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > > @shapeblue > > > > > > > > > > > > dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > @shapeblue > > > >
