go into
NetworkOrchestrator.
- Murali Reddy
On Sept. 6, 2013, 10:26 p.m., Soheil Eizadi wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> Chiradeep,
>
> I have been thinking about your concern and there is something bothering me
> about it. The issue CLOUDSTACK-4328 of which
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/14320/ is an implementation. This issue has
> been brought up by the engin
gt;>>> running on the machines. I am not biased as to the way how to
>>>> do/implement
>>>> this control. The networkoffering seemed like the way to do it.
>>>>
>>>> Having said that I didn't think that httpClose would be consider
On 08/10/13 7:41 PM, "benoit lair" wrote:
>Hello!
>
>I don't understand wht is going wrong :
>
>When i'm looking into the official docs, i see that vpc is still declared
>to be able to do lb only on one tier ??
>
>However, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2367 says that
>this feat
On 09/10/13 11:33 AM, "Darren Shepherd"
wrote:
>Why is a placeholder nic created before the VRs for the VPC are created?
>
>Darren
>
Generally place holder nic is used in cases where cloudstack uses a subnet
IP from the guest subnet, but ip is not used for any VM nic's. In most of
the external n
Thanks Syed for the FS.
Couple of comments:
- any reason why you choose assignTo/RemoveFrom load balancer rule API's
to assign/remove certificate to LB rules? These api's are basically for
controlling VM membership with a load balancer rule. Can
create/updateLoadBalancerRule api's b used for regi
On 09/10/13 6:10 AM, "Pedro Roque Marques"
wrote:
>Darren,
>Using ActionEvents is not desirable for the plugin either... today
>CloudStack lacks the ability for a component/plugin to associate itself
>to the life-cycle of an object. It would be ideal if there was a generic
>way to accomplish that
gical router on
the dataplane that does the forwarding?
+ is BGP/MPLS required on the IP fabric and the Hypervisors
- Murali Reddy
On Oct. 8, 2013, 11:58 p.m., Pedro Marques wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-m
On 09/10/13 8:08 PM, "Syed Ahmed" wrote:
>Thanks Murali for your response.
>
>> - any reason why you choose assignTo/RemoveFrom load balancer rule API's
>
>I thought this made more sense than create/updateLoadbalancerRule as
>we would have to call update to delete a cert which I find somewhat
>co
On 11/10/13 9:31 PM, "Syed Ahmed" wrote:
>Thanks for your valuable feedback Murali. Here are my comments.
>
>> IMO,
>> its better we introduce new api's say
>> registerCertifcateToLoadbalancer/deregisterCertifcateToLoadbalancer than
>> force fit existing API's for associate/dis-associate certific
> On Oct. 9, 2013, 2:49 p.m., Murali Reddy wrote:
> > - Is there a reason why no new isolation type was not added for 'contrail
> > controller'. For other overlay technologies (STT, GRE, VXLAN) that
> > CloudStack support there is an isolation type and corre
> On Oct. 9, 2013, 2:49 p.m., Murali Reddy wrote:
> > - Is there a reason why no new isolation type was not added for 'contrail
> > controller'. For other overlay technologies (STT, GRE, VXLAN) that
> > CloudStack support there is an isolation type and corre
able to apply
the patch on to master branch and there are no tabs and trailing white spaces.
- Murali Reddy
On Oct. 16, 2013, 6:51 p.m., Pedro Marques wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit
OVS integration for GRE overlay tunnels is currently broken in both master and
4.2. Till 4.1, Network Manager will loop through all the network elements for
NIC prepare and release so, OVS network element had chance to participate in
the NIC prepare/release operations. This behaviour in network
On 29/10/13 10:12 PM, "Hugo Trippaers" wrote:
>Hey guys,
>
>This is something i had on my wish list for some time. The current way
>network gurus are handled is that each guru is asked to design a network
>and will decide by itself to either do it or don¹t. Most gurus have sane
>checks on which
dont see code to add a network offering with 'SslTermination'capability.
Also list network offering, should show if LB service with SSL termination is
supported by the offering.
- Please add Apache license header to all files.
- Murali Red
On 06/11/13 12:40 AM, "Syed Ahmed" wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov. 5, 2013, 9:43 a.m., Murali Reddy wrote:
>> > api/src/com/cloud/network/lb/LoadBalancingRule.java, lines 42-43
>> >
>><https://reviews.apache.org/r/14976/diff/3/?file=374393#file3
and update the
patch
- Murali Reddy
On Nov. 6, 2013, 12:54 a.m., Syed Ahmed wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache
and update the
patch
- Murali Reddy
On Nov. 6, 2013, 12:54 a.m., Syed Ahmed wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache
: Syed
Date: Wed Nov 6 15:08:42 2013 -0500
- Murali Reddy
On Nov. 6, 2013, 8:15 p.m., Syed Ahmed wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache
lancerRule. There should
not be 'protocol' in the LoadBalancerContainer?
- Murali Reddy
On Nov. 13, 2013, 6:08 p.m., Syed Ahmed wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> ht
If you can run XenServer on ESXi, there there is 'virtual guest
tagging'[1] where VLAN 4095 lets guest instances to send and receive
tagged traffic on to physical network. Perhaps you can try creating a
network with 4095 VLAN tag from CS and spin up XS VM instances.
You can do it on XenServer as w
On 20/05/13 7:08 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote:
>On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 08:30:26PM +, Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
>> Hi Murali,
>>
>> I found that the table "netscaler_pod_ref" (introduced with your checkin
>> 3b1aca19) is missing on the upgraded setups. The table was introduced in
>> 40, but it n
Swamy,
As mentioned in my merge request [1], I have generalised this feature and
tried to not enforce AWS EIP semantics. Please see the updated FS [2]
[1] http://s.apache.org/xjy
[2]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/portable+public+IP
Let me know if you need further clari
On 20/05/13 11:31 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote:
>On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 02:19:24PM +, Murali Reddy wrote:
>>
>> Swamy,
>>
>> As mentioned in my merge request [1], I have generalised this feature
>>and
>> tried to not enforce AWS EIP semanti
Chip, please cherry-pick to 4.1
CLOUDSTACK-2587: netscaler_pod_ref DB upgrade is missing from 3.0.2 to 4.x
added missing schema as part of 4.0 to 4.1 upgrade
Branch: refs/heads/master
Commit: 623a26e469ca7354a7dbe6b8954276985e289687
Parents: cc49230
Author: Murali Reddy mailto:muralimmre
On 23/05/13 10:43 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote:
>CLOUDSTACK-2215
>ACS41 SSVM does not use allocated storage ip range
>
>The bug above needs to have my questions addressed. Is this (1)
>reproducible and (2) is it really a blocker if it is reproducible?
>
>The other outstanding issue for 4.1.0 are th
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/11372/#review20995
---
Ship it!
d8f5f2ea10eca540c10e93469fd5307fe25f0959
- Murali Reddy
In CloudStack, currently there are four distinct operations available with
public IP's at network service and manager layers.
1. Acquiring a public IP from zone level public IP pool
2. Associate acquired public IP with a guest network/VPC
3. Disassociate an associated public IP with a
On 28/05/13 11:42 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote:
>
>+1 to this proposal (with one concern noted below).
>
>>
>> Effort I am proposing is to get API semantics right with minimal
>>changes.
>> I am not proposing to enable portability for zone level public Ip's for
>> 4.2 but can be done for later relea
We should do a health-check of proposed features [1] which are at risk for
4.2 feature freeze before deciding to re-evaluate timelines.
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/4.2+Design+Documents
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Chip Childers
wrote:
> On May 29, 2013, at 7:
Yes. We agreed on time based release. I am failing to see what would extending
freeze date will achieve.
On 30-May-2013, at 12:34 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:02 AM, murali reddy wrote:
>> We should do a health-check of proposed features [1] which are at risk f
of caller.
- Murali Reddy
On May 28, 2013, 7:27 a.m., Jayapal Reddy wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache
Marcus,
Events bus framework with current AMQP default implementation, has routing
key with format
'Eventsource.EventCategory.EventType.EntityType.EntityUUID' as described
in [1]. If you see from the log you pasted below events of type
'ResourceStateEvent' has details of entity UUID. Since it wa
Opened bug CLOUDSTACK-3190 for this.
On 25/06/13 4:03 PM, "Murali Reddy" wrote:
>
>Marcus,
>
>Events bus framework with current AMQP default implementation, has routing
>key with format
>'Eventsource.EventCategory.EventType.EntityType.EntityUUID' as desc
un 25, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Murali Reddy
>wrote:
>>
>> Opened bug CLOUDSTACK-3190 for this.
>>
>> On 25/06/13 4:03 PM, "Murali Reddy" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Marcus,
>>>
>>>Events bus framework with current AMQP default implementation
t? If its not please open bug.
>
>I need this working, now-ish, so I'm willing to get in and get it done,
>but again, I'd rather work with the flow, and not against it :-)
>
>Cheers,
>
>-Ryan Dietrich
>
>On Jun 26, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Murali Reddy wrote:
>
>
On 28/06/13 4:28 AM, "Ryan Dietrich" wrote:
>> For every api command, pretty much there is an action event generated
>>that
>> gets published on to event bus as well. CLOUDSTACK-3190 is open bug that
>> needs to be fixed so that entity type being operated and UUID details of
>> entity are publish
What do we break if we fix it now? Since instance id, instance type are
also part of the 'AsyncJobResponse' its appropriate to pass full details.
Clearly from the Ryan use case, details of job are needed by external
systems and since this is the only book-keeping of a job, we need to
retain the hi
On 02/07/13 7:45 PM, "Ryan Dietrich" wrote:
>Patch submitted.
>
>https://reviews.apache.org/r/12223/
Thanks for the patch. Added some comments to the review. Cloudstack group
is missing as reviewer, don't have permission to edit the review, so could
you please add group to the reviewers?
>
>Thi
On 03/07/13 9:02 PM, "Ryan Dietrich" wrote:
>
>
>> On July 3, 2013, 9:04 a.m., Murali Reddy wrote:
>> > server/src/com/cloud/async/AsyncJobManagerImpl.java, lines 147-156
>> >
>><https://reviews.apache.org/r/12223/diff/3/?file=314993#file3149
e7c8a35c3aca4722666c6f6ff6bc9caac46e17c3 4.2
- Murali Reddy
On July 3, 2013, 3:58 p.m., Ryan Dietrich wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache
: 814630c5428862aa247914e5bc04c3bcbc00c501
Branch: refs/heads/4.2
Commit: a93042674134ded31d0dea2d006fac881743ab91
- Murali Reddy
On July 5, 2013, 8:14 p.m., Toshiaki Hatano wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit
On 11/07/13 2:33 PM, "Prasanna Santhanam" wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 12:27:28PM +0530, Girish Shilamkar wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> In order to create shared network StartIp/endIp/gateway/netmask are
>> required. I am looking at an old test case which creates shared
>> network without IP range
>
"Ipc framework and events framework needs to add this."
Alex, what specifically events framework need to handle this? Till 4.2,
UserContext was used to keep info like entity type, entity UUID, event
description etc in the UserContext. With CallContext, I see storing entity
details in CallContext
Ryan,
You should open a bug and add details on what the use case you are trying
to solve. Since CloudStack is not in control of UUID generation, you
should at least check that uniqueness of passed in UUID.
Also please introduce a new smoke test for 'injected job id' instead of
piggy backing the t
On 23/07/13 11:15 PM, "Nguyen Anh Tu" wrote:
>@David: it just only add a feature for guest network mode. If a VPC has
>too
>much tiers, maybe one VPC router is not enough.
If scale is a concern with VPC router, perhaps that could be addressed. I
believe users can today deploy a routing appliance
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
ttps://reviews.apache.org/r/12942/
> ---
>
> (Updated July 25, 2013, 12:50 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for cloudstack, Murali Reddy and Prasanna Santhanam.
>
>
> Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-3454
>
>
> Repository: cloudstack-git
>
: 91bf54652ec6450a58f1c44d5d67069ac99a6462
Branch: refs/heads/master
Commit: 2cca335856236aea584d69893b1adf67e5e233ad
- Murali Reddy
On July 30, 2013, 1:07 p.m., Rajesh Battala wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit
On 06/08/13 8:59 AM, "Soheil Eizadi" wrote:
>One way to achieve this behavior is to have a call out in prepareNic() to
>the NetworkElements before the call to the NetworkGuru allowing the
>NetworkElement to update the Nic Profile. In this use case the Network
>Element would suggest an IP Address.
On 06/08/13 12:30 PM, "Nguyen Anh Tu" wrote:
>Hi Chiradeep,
>
>Exactly Intellicache. As I know, to use this, VDIs on XenServer/XCP must
>be
>set two params:
>+ on-boot = persist (or reset). If persist, VM's data (except OS) will be
>keep when reboot. Otherwise, it will be destroy on local SR when
gt; > makes it difficult to put this inside a guru.
>> > However it does seem odd to put this inside an element. Perhaps we
>> > need a 3rd type (IpAddressReserver?)
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/6/13 10:42 AM, "Soheil Eizadi" wrote:
>> >
7281593758df4b5d5d110507965d3468bfd2bff4
- Murali Reddy
On Aug. 13, 2013, 10:23 a.m., Rajesh Battala wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache
bb26b854fb89ef71c5183e2c23ef17898d9d
- Murali Reddy
On Aug. 16, 2013, 12:39 p.m., Rajesh Battala wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache
lso enable
>>> the firewall service to trigger application of the source NAT rules?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dave.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f=se
>>>rver/src/com/c
On 21/03/13 3:10 AM, "Manan Shah" wrote:
>Thanks Murali for the FS. Below are some questions/comments.
>
>1. Is there a reason why we wouldn't support this feature for VPC?
Manan, thanks for reviewing. There is no particular reason, VPC would need
little different semantics we need to think thro
On 21/03/13 12:39 PM, "Sateesh Chodapuneedi"
wrote:
>Unable to access Cloudstack git repositories.
>Seems infra is migrating our git repos off incubator.
>
>Regards,
>Sateesh
>
Change the .git config to refer
"git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/cloudstack.git"
/com/cloud/network/Network.java 2bf7b7f
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10061/diff/
Testing
---
Tested life cycle of both isolated and shared networks
Thanks,
Murali Reddy
e.
May be, I have not thought through or explored AWS VPC EIP semantics. Can
you please explore and see the support for isolated network can work for
VPC as well semantically? We can raise feature request for next release.
>
>Regards,
>Manan Shah
>
>
>
>
>On 3/20/13 11:52 P
On 22/03/13 3:26 AM, "Chiradeep Vittal"
wrote:
>
>
>On 3/20/13 8:31 PM, "Murali Reddy" wrote:
>>>are outside of our control scares me.
>>
>>David, yes this is a valid concern. So, initially I was planning to
>>leverage the ADC like NetScal
On 22/03/13 9:37 AM, "Manan Shah" wrote:
>My assumption is that EIP for VPC should work exactly the same as EIP for
>Isolated Networks since EIP is like another Public IP except that it can
>be moved across zones. Also, we do support static NAT in VPC as well as
>Isolated. So, my thinking is that
Chip, please pull in this commit in master to 4.1 branch.
commit f414b8a850607d20c0a78d455b4c43d90947b41f
Author: Murali Reddy
Date: Wed Mar 27 18:06:22 2013 +0530
CLOUDSTACK-1804:Upgrade 4.0 -> 4.1 - DB upgrade fails.
remove the data migration functions that were accidently introduced
On 20/03/13 7:15 AM, "Murali Reddy" wrote:
>I would like to merge GSLB feature proposed [1] and developed in the
>feature branch [2] into master. Code for this feature pretty much
>conforms to what was proposed in FS [3]. I added unit tests for all the
>new service layer me
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:08:58PM +0000, Murali Reddy wrote:
> > On 20/03/13 7:15 AM, "Murali Reddy" wrote:
> >
> > I merged this feature into master with below commit. All review comments
> > were ad
On 27/03/13 8:04 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote:
>
>Murali Reddy -
> CLOUDSTACK-1673 AWS Regions - Events - User disable event does not
>include the UUID of the user that was disabled.
>
> Murali, you mentioned that you were working on a fix for this. You
> happened
On 28/03/13 7:42 AM, "Chip Childers" wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 04:31:05PM -0700, Kelven Yang wrote:
>> For UCS issue, I've put a fix in.
>>
>> For GSLB, a work around is to run non-OSS build, hopefully this can
>>unlock
>> developers temporarily on master branch
>
>Good work-around for now
On 28/03/13 9:00 AM, "Kelven Yang" wrote:
>>
>>I was running Non-oss builds, so could not hit this issue. My apologies
>>for the breaking OSS build.
>>
>>Kelven,
>>
>>I am not sure how to fix this issue. If there is no implementing class,
>>why should inject fail? I was under impression it will be
On 28/03/13 9:00 AM, "Rajesh Battala" wrote:
>Jetty is failing to start on latest master building oss.
>Am on the latest master, building oss and starting jetty is failing with
>below error.
>
>Error creating bean with name 'globalLoadBalancingRulesServiceImpl':
>Injection of autowired dependenc
On 27/03/13 9:49 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:39:25PM +, Murali Reddy wrote:
>> On 27/03/13 8:04 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Murali Reddy -
>> > CLOUDSTACK-1673 AWS Regions - Events - Use
On 28/03/13 10:59 PM, "Will Stevens" wrote:
>I am trying to implement the non-overlapping cidrs right now and I have
>some questions. Does the ExternalGuestNetworkGuru create networks with
>non-overlapping cidrs by default? Or do I need to override it's 'design'
>and 'implement' methods to impl
kmail.org/message/eu2hby4gruf67frb
>
>On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Murali Reddy
>wrote:
>> On 22/03/13 9:37 AM, "Manan Shah" wrote:
>>
>>>My assumption is that EIP for VPC should work exactly the same as EIP
>>>for
>>>Isolated Networks sin
commit 48311363d600264cb3542992a615706cb92f90ad
Author: Murali Reddy
Date: Fri Mar 29 15:53:21 2013 +0530
CLOUDSTACK-1834: Events are not generated for registerUserKeys(),
Enabling account and Editing account.
r suggestion. But due to Spring default behaviour with
@Inject, both setter and interface injection fails if there is no
implementation.
For now, I am just initializing through the bean property configured in
componentContext.xml and nonossComponentContext.xml.
>
>
>
>On 3/27/13 8:36 PM,
tps://reviews.apache.org/r/10040/#comment38794>
this check not required
server/src/com/cloud/network/NetworkServiceImpl.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/10040/#comment38795>
Same here.this check not required
- Murali Reddy
On March 21, 2013, 3:58 a.m., Jayapal
: ee3fd1843533528eb3872951730fee6e5802c348
Parents: 690c312
Author: Kanzhe Jiang
Authored: Fri Mar 29 18:48:50 2013 +0530
Committer: Murali Reddy
Committed: Fri Mar 29 18:54:48 2013 +0530
- Murali Reddy
On March 29, 2013, 6:38 a.m., Kanzhe Jiang wrote
On 01/04/13 1:47 AM, "David Nalley" wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Murali Reddy
>wrote:
>> On 26/03/13 8:10 PM, "Adam Grochowski"
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>So I'm curious - what is the proposed method to move a single IP
I revoked the code for the features 'optional public IP assignment for EIP' [1]
and 'network services in shared network' [2] features from master due to IP
clearance issues. Both the features have passed IP clearance window [3][4]. Due
to multiple refactors that happened at 4.1 code freeze time,
- Murali Reddy
On April 1, 2013, 8:32 a.m., Jayapal Reddy wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache
etmask because it is an external network (as you can see
from the included screenshot).
[Inline image 1]
What am I missing here? Why am I unable to create non-overlapping cidrs with
the ExternalGuestNetworkGuru?
Thanks,
Will
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Murali Reddy
ma
On 01/04/13 7:03 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 07:00:07AM +, Murali Reddy wrote:
>> I revoked the code for the features 'optional public IP assignment for
>>EIP' [1] and 'network services in shared network' [2] features from
CLOUDSTACK-1834: Events are not generated for registerUserKeys()
Branch: refs/heads/master
Commit: 9180bd599015ce248e894a0ef476a4604b1533e4
Parents: 47dc989
Author: Murali Reddy mailto:murali.re...@citrix.com>>
Authored: Tue Apr 9 17:45:19 2013 +0530
Committer: Murali Reddy
mailto:mur
On 08/04/13 7:51 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote:
>
>CLOUDSTACK-1834 Events are not generated for registerUserKeys(), Enabling
>account and Editing account. Murali Reddy
>Murali - In your opinion, is this blocking the release? If not, let's
>change the priority to m
Justin,
As Chiradeep mentioned, 'basic zone' is solution you should be trying out.
With basic zone, you could associate guest subnet per pod, there is no
VLAN's required in the zone. Your L2 broadcast domain is restricted to
POD. POD becomes unit of scale in basic zone, so east-west traffic acros
I would like merge back the IP cleared [1] 'network services in shared
networks' [2] feature back to master. I worked out 'sharednetworkservices'
branch and kept up to date with master.
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cloudstackdev/201301.mbox/%3ccakprhvyp0xozlwuj7yomboi1
ter
Commit: c0419791ede331fff7151a5cee9a358c0400c272
Parents: 4ae3e5d
Author: Murali Reddy mailto:murali.re...@citrix.com>>
Authored: Fri Apr 12 16:44:03 2013 +0530
Committer: Murali Reddy
mailto:murali.re...@citrix.com>>
Committed: Fri Apr 12 16:47:50 2013 +0530
On 12/04/13 2:41 AM, "Chip Childers" wrote:
>
>CLOUDSTACK-1934 NPE with listSupportedNetworkServices after upgrade from
>4.0 to 4.1 (Ubuntu MS)
>Unassigned
Submitted patch for 1934.
Thanks for test plan. Test plan looks good to me.For the below questions
you raised in the test plan please open a bug.
1. Provide a mechanism for updating information about existing Netscaler
device that is enabled for GSLB (like change isGslbProvider from True to
False and vice versa etc..,)
2.
Sheng,
Thanks for the FS. Couple of points in FS that made me curious of the
rational behind it.
Why do you want to all the end user VM's (except for DHCP server VM) in
shared network to be connected only to I-port's. This means that even VM's
of same user can not talk to each other, right? Is'nt
On 18/04/13 6:29 AM, "Chip Childers" wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 05:49:23PM -0700, Sheng Yang wrote:
>> In fact that's the requirement for this design. We need this very strict
>> restriction to implement isolation for the VMs. PVLAN is the way we
>>used to
>> approach this requirement.
>
>As
Since its a example class, its not added in the client war file that jetty
runs. Please add a dependency in client/pom.xml as below
org.apache.cloudstack
cloud-plugin-example-dns-notifier
${project.version}
On 19/04/13 5:58 AM, "Soheil Eizadi" wrote:
>I am trying to run the DnsN
Pardon my ignorance of project management, but it appears to me we are
talking of managing a release after half way through the cycle. May be
this is orthogonal discussion, but how about taking approach of planning a
release early in the cycle (at least for future releases)? Having a time
window b
ve it.
server/src/com/cloud/network/NetworkServiceImpl.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/10727/#comment40524>
This check needs to be done for both advanced/basic zones and
isolate/shared networks.
also you need to check if NIC is owned/usable by caller. No need for check
ac
tps://reviews.apache.org/r/10703/#comment40528>
I don't think we should be passing VLAN information in NicResponse.
Its important that we pass network ID to which this NIC belong. I dont see
network id being set in the nic response.
- Murali Reddy
On April 22, 2013, 11:10 a.
tps://reviews.apache.org/r/10703/#comment40643>
if IPv6 address is present then setIpv6 address in the nic response.
- Murali Reddy
On April 25, 2013, 5:03 a.m., Jayapal Reddy wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10703/#review19695
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Murali Reddy
On April 25, 2013, 7:06 a.m
Please open a different bug, for supporting 'egress firewalls' when firewall
service is enabled in shared networks.
- Murali Reddy
On April 26, 2013, 9:08 a.m., Jayapal Reddy wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically g
: Rajesh Battala
Date: Wed Apr 17 18:22:30 2013 +0530
- Murali Reddy
On April 17, 2013, 1:20 p.m., Rajesh Battala wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache
-submit patch
that applies to master.
- Murali Reddy
On April 29, 2013, 6:57 a.m., Jayapal Reddy wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache
: Jayapal
Date: Thu May 2 15:24:21 2013 +0530
CLOUDSTACK-1828 Source Nat on private gateway feature
- Murali Reddy
On May 2, 2013, 10:02 a.m., Jayapal Reddy wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To rep
1 - 100 of 330 matches
Mail list logo
