;>
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Toshiaki
>>
>> -----Original Message-
>> From: Murali Reddy [mailto:murali.re...@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 22:33
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Compatibility issue
l will not work?
Thanks,
--
Toshiaki
-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 05:06
To: dev
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Compatibility issue between network plugins and
hypervisors
H,
isn't it the responsibility of the admini
ache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Compatibility issue between network plugins and
> hypervisors
>
> Also, should not we treat 'isolation' as Network Element capability rather
> than Hypervisor. Tunnelling capability could be a Hypervisor capability,
> but isolation (
arguments?
Thanks,
--
Toshiaki
-Original Message-
From: Murali Reddy [mailto:murali.re...@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 22:33
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Compatibility issue between network plugins and
hypervisors
Also, should not we treat 'isolatio
Also, should not we treat 'isolation' as Network Element capability rather
than Hypervisor. Tunnelling capability could be a Hypervisor capability,
but isolation (STT/GRE) is Network Element capability? So,zone isolation
-> isolation provider -> supported hypervisors should be checked against
add c
+1 (with a caveat), good idea since isolation method is supported on a
per-zone basis.
The caveat is that sometimes it makes sense to support multiple isolation
methods in a zone.
For example, VPC(advanced) + basic in the same zone.
Why would one do this? Simply because someone might start with one
+1
I think we should take advantage of hypervisor capabilities to look for that
compatibility.
--Alex
> -Original Message-
> From: Toshiaki Hatano [mailto:toshiaki.hat...@verio.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 3:01 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Compatibilit
