We're actively using some SRXs in production and having to work around the bugs, so I would be very keen to get this into 4.13, especially as 4.13 is LTS and we probably won't use 4.14.
If the change is likely to be accepted into 4.13 then I will definitely have it done this week. At the most basic level it just needs the XML script definitions updating, but I would prefer to make things a bit tidier - at the moment if you add a port forwarding rule with a port range, the SRX plugin adds one rule per port (earlier versions didn't support port ranges) - I'd prefer to change that back to have parity with CloudStack rules. On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 16:28, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > Are you likely to have the change in 4.13 given that the freeze should be > coming soon? If not, the easy way forward would be to announce that the > change is coming in 4.14 in the 4.13 release notes. > > Personally, I think that you are right and more people would be pleased to > see the plugin get some love than would complain that the old version isn't > supported anymore. > > But it's usually nicer to give people some warning when we can... > > > paul.an...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > Amadeus House, Floral Street, London WC2E 9DPUK > @shapeblue > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Lawley <rich...@richardlawley.com> > Sent: 26 June 2019 14:07 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Juniper SRX Support in 4.13 > > Hi, > > In the current release, we list CloudStack as supporting Juniper SRX (Model > srx100b) versions 10.3 to 10.4 R7.5. As I've mentioned in a previous email, > this is very old (EOL 2014). The main thing that causes a problem here is > that somewhere between JunOS 10 and 15, Port Forwarding changed from being a > single port per rule to a port-range per rule. > > I'm prepared to modify the SRX plugin so that it works fully with JunOS 15 > (I've done some basics), but to fully complete this would require breaking > compatibility with older versions. I think given that JunOS 15 is the lowest > currently available version, and 19 is also available, it would be better if > upped the minimum requirements. > > In addition, when I asked previously for input from anyone using it, there > was only one response (from Jayapal Uradi), so I don't think this is being > widely used. We're trying to use SRXs with JunOS 15 (and also testing with > vSRX appliances). > > What are anyone's thoughts on bumping the supported SRX version to 15? > > Regards, > > Richard
