Re: Support for vSphere 9

[Sebastian Gomez]

Hi Paul,

Thanks a lot for the answer.
For the ACS people, may be would be a good idea to reference this because
many people are planning to upgrade vSphere and will be afraid about this.

Thanks again.
We will wait for those versions.




Have a nice day!








Atentamente,
Sebastián Gómez

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Paul Angus 
wrote:

> Hi Sebastián
>
> vSphere 6 and 6.5 will be 'officially' supported in 4.10, it is also
> supported in the 4.9 LTS branch from 4.9.2 onwards.
>
>
>
> Paul Angus
>
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sebastian Gomez [mailto:tioc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 17 January 2017 06:48
> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Support for vSphere 9
>
> Oh my god! I'm still sleeping..
>
> Big mistake: I wanted to say *vSphere 6*.
>
>
> Sorry!
>
>
>
> Atentamente,
> Sebastián Gómez
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Andrew Kirch  wrote:
>
> > Unless I'm mistaken, the current version of vSphere is 6.5.  ESXi is
> > also 6.5.  Would you please clarify what you're trying to accomplish?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Sebastian Gomez 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all!
> > >
> > > I have been looking for any reference into the ACS documentation,
> > > news, etc. about the support for vSphere 9, but I have not found
> anything.
> > >
> > > I am sure that this question has been made here before, so excuse me
> > > in advance for ask again:
> > >
> > >
> > > Is there any official plan for Cloudstack to support vSphere 9?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Sebastian.
> > >
> >
>

RE: Support for vSphere 9

[Paul Angus]

Hi Sebastián

vSphere 6 and 6.5 will be 'officially' supported in 4.10, it is also supported 
in the 4.9 LTS branch from 4.9.2 onwards.



Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 


-Original Message-
From: Sebastian Gomez [mailto:tioc...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 17 January 2017 06:48
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Support for vSphere 9

Oh my god! I'm still sleeping..

Big mistake: I wanted to say *vSphere 6*.


Sorry!



Atentamente,
Sebastián Gómez

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Andrew Kirch  wrote:

> Unless I'm mistaken, the current version of vSphere is 6.5.  ESXi is 
> also 6.5.  Would you please clarify what you're trying to accomplish?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Andrew
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Sebastian Gomez 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all!
> >
> > I have been looking for any reference into the ACS documentation, 
> > news, etc. about the support for vSphere 9, but I have not found anything.
> >
> > I am sure that this question has been made here before, so excuse me 
> > in advance for ask again:
> >
> >
> > Is there any official plan for Cloudstack to support vSphere 9?
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Sebastian.
> >
>

Re: Support for vSphere 9

[Sebastian Gomez]

Oh my god! I'm still sleeping..

Big mistake: I wanted to say *vSphere 6*.


Sorry!



Atentamente,
Sebastián Gómez

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Andrew Kirch  wrote:

> Unless I'm mistaken, the current version of vSphere is 6.5.  ESXi is also
> 6.5.  Would you please clarify what you're trying to accomplish?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Andrew
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Sebastian Gomez 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all!
> >
> > I have been looking for any reference into the ACS documentation, news,
> > etc. about the support for vSphere 9, but I have not found anything.
> >
> > I am sure that this question has been made here before, so excuse me in
> > advance for ask again:
> >
> >
> > Is there any official plan for Cloudstack to support vSphere 9?
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Sebastian.
> >
>

Re: Support for vSphere 9

[Andrew Kirch]

Unless I'm mistaken, the current version of vSphere is 6.5.  ESXi is also
6.5.  Would you please clarify what you're trying to accomplish?

Thanks!

Andrew

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Sebastian Gomez  wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> I have been looking for any reference into the ACS documentation, news,
> etc. about the support for vSphere 9, but I have not found anything.
>
> I am sure that this question has been made here before, so excuse me in
> advance for ask again:
>
>
> Is there any official plan for Cloudstack to support vSphere 9?
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Sebastian.
>

Support for vSphere 9

[Sebastian Gomez]

Hi all!

I have been looking for any reference into the ACS documentation, news,
etc. about the support for vSphere 9, but I have not found anything.

I am sure that this question has been made here before, so excuse me in
advance for ask again:


Is there any official plan for Cloudstack to support vSphere 9?


Thanks in advance.





Best regards,
Sebastian.

Re: ACS 4.5.2 upgrade to 4.9.2 ( Shapeblue )

[Rohit Yadav]

Hi Cristian,


Yes, I've upgraded my local 4.5.2 environment (KVM based) to 4.9.2.0.

In general, for upgrading production environment I would recommend doing a test 
upgrade, and post-upgrade VM/volume/network life-cycle testing.


Regards.


From: Ciobanu Cristian 
Sent: 17 January 2017 01:42:06
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: ACS 4.5.2 upgrade to 4.9.2 ( Shapeblue )

Hello,



Short question from my side, have anyone did the upgrade from 4.5.2 to
4.9.2 successfully ? On my production server I have 4.5.2 installed from
Shapeblue repositories  ( ACS 4.5.2, basic network, ESXI 5.5- update 3 )







Thanks in advance.

Cristian


rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 

Re: Dedicated IP range for SSVM/CPVM

[Will Stevens]

Rene, this is probably not going to solve your problem, but I use this
trick for other use cases.  You can setup more than one range.  ACS seems
to always exhaust one range before moving on to the next range.  If it is a
new install, then you can do a range with only 2 IPs in it and make it
first.  Since the first two IPs which will be provisioned when ACS is setup
is the SSVM and CPVM, they will automatically take the two IPs from that
special range.

I am pretty sure I have tested this.  Later when other IPs have been used
from the other range, if you destroy the SSVM or CPVM, they will come back
up on one of the two IPs that they were on before because they will be free
again and they will be used first again.  If your system is really active,
then you will be in a race condition while the SSVM and CPVM get bounced to
get the same IPs back.

Anyway, I figured I would mention it because it may be a workaround you can
make use of.  I do this in dev/staging environments which need real public
IPs, but I don't need the SSVM and CPVM to have real public IPs.  This lets
me preserve two real public IPs by using private IPs for that first range
for the SSVM and CPVM.

Cheers,

*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer



On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Nitin Kumar Maharana <
nitinkumar.mahar...@accelerite.com> wrote:

> Hi Rene,
>
> The default pool, which means are you mentioning the public IP range?
>
> If it is a public IP range, user VMs won’t be consuming any IP from there.
> Only system VMs(CPVM/SSVM/VR) will be consuming. VRs will be providing
> public access to the user VMs.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Nitin
> > On 16-Jan-2017, at 8:56 PM, Rene Moser  wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > We would like to make a change proposal for SSVM/CPVM.
> >
> > Currently, the SSVM/CPVM get an IP from the "default" pool of
> > vlaniprange which is the from the account "system"
> >
> >
> >  "vlaniprange": [
> >{
> >  "account": "system",
> >  "domain": "ROOT",
> >  "endip": "10.101.0.250",
> >  "forvirtualnetwork": true,
> >  "gateway": "10.101.0.1",
> >  "netmask": "255.255.255.0",
> >  "startip": "10.101.0.11",
> >  ...
> >
> >},
> >
> >
> >  "systemvm": [
> >{
> >  "activeviewersessions": 0,
> >  "gateway": "10.101.0.1",
> >  "hypervisor": "VMware",
> >  "id": "d9a8abe5-b1e0-47d6-8f39-01b48ff1e0fa",
> >  "name": "v-5877-VM",
> >  "privatenetmask": "255.255.255.0",
> >  "publicip": "10.101.0.113",
> >  "publicnetmask": "255.255.255.0",
> >  "state": "Running",
> >  ...
> >},
> >
> >
> > For security considerations we would like to define a dedicated IP range
> > for SSVM/CPVM, which, preferably, should not have any relation to the
> > default pool range.
> >
> > The default pool range should be used for userVMs only. To indicate the
> > use I propolse 2 new flags, which only considered for "account=system"
> > and indicate if the range can be used for userVMs or/and systemVMs.
> >
> > For backwards compatibility this would be the default
> >
> > "foruservms": true,
> > "forsystemvms": true,
> >
> >
> > to have a separate range for UserVMs/SystemVMs, it would look like
> >
> >
> >  "vlaniprange": [
> >{
> >  "account": "system",
> >  "domain": "ROOT",
> >  "foruservms": true,
> >  "forsystemvms": false,
> >  "endip": "192.160.123.250",
> >  "forvirtualnetwork": true,
> >  "gateway": "192.160.123.1",
> >  "netmask": "255.255.255.0",
> >  "startip": "192.160.123.11",
> >  ...
> >
> >},
> >
> >  "vlaniprange": [
> >{
> >  "account": "system",
> >  "domain": "ROOT",
> >  "foruservms": false,
> >  "forsystemvms": true,
> >  "endip": "10.101.0.250",
> >  "forvirtualnetwork": true,
> >  "gateway": "10.101.0.1",
> >  "netmask": "255.255.255.0",
> >  "startip": "10.101.0.11",
> >  ...
> >
> >},
> >
> >
> > Does anyone has see any conflicts with this proposal?
> >
> > Regards
> > René
> >
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>

Re: Dedicated IP range for SSVM/CPVM

[Nitin Kumar Maharana]

Hi Rene,

The default pool, which means are you mentioning the public IP range?

If it is a public IP range, user VMs won’t be consuming any IP from there.
Only system VMs(CPVM/SSVM/VR) will be consuming. VRs will be providing public 
access to the user VMs.


Thanks,
Nitin
> On 16-Jan-2017, at 8:56 PM, Rene Moser  wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> We would like to make a change proposal for SSVM/CPVM.
> 
> Currently, the SSVM/CPVM get an IP from the "default" pool of
> vlaniprange which is the from the account "system"
> 
> 
>  "vlaniprange": [
>{
>  "account": "system",
>  "domain": "ROOT",
>  "endip": "10.101.0.250",
>  "forvirtualnetwork": true,
>  "gateway": "10.101.0.1",
>  "netmask": "255.255.255.0",
>  "startip": "10.101.0.11",
>  ...
> 
>},
> 
> 
>  "systemvm": [
>{
>  "activeviewersessions": 0,
>  "gateway": "10.101.0.1",
>  "hypervisor": "VMware",
>  "id": "d9a8abe5-b1e0-47d6-8f39-01b48ff1e0fa",
>  "name": "v-5877-VM",
>  "privatenetmask": "255.255.255.0",
>  "publicip": "10.101.0.113",
>  "publicnetmask": "255.255.255.0",
>  "state": "Running",
>  ...
>},
> 
> 
> For security considerations we would like to define a dedicated IP range
> for SSVM/CPVM, which, preferably, should not have any relation to the
> default pool range.
> 
> The default pool range should be used for userVMs only. To indicate the
> use I propolse 2 new flags, which only considered for "account=system"
> and indicate if the range can be used for userVMs or/and systemVMs.
> 
> For backwards compatibility this would be the default
> 
> "foruservms": true,
> "forsystemvms": true,
> 
> 
> to have a separate range for UserVMs/SystemVMs, it would look like
> 
> 
>  "vlaniprange": [
>{
>  "account": "system",
>  "domain": "ROOT",
>  "foruservms": true,
>  "forsystemvms": false,
>  "endip": "192.160.123.250",
>  "forvirtualnetwork": true,
>  "gateway": "192.160.123.1",
>  "netmask": "255.255.255.0",
>  "startip": "192.160.123.11",
>  ...
> 
>},
> 
>  "vlaniprange": [
>{
>  "account": "system",
>  "domain": "ROOT",
>  "foruservms": false,
>  "forsystemvms": true,
>  "endip": "10.101.0.250",
>  "forvirtualnetwork": true,
>  "gateway": "10.101.0.1",
>  "netmask": "255.255.255.0",
>  "startip": "10.101.0.11",
>  ...
> 
>},
> 
> 
> Does anyone has see any conflicts with this proposal?
> 
> Regards
> René
> 




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.

ACS 4.5.2 upgrade to 4.9.2 ( Shapeblue )

[Ciobanu Cristian]

Hello,

 

Short question from my side, have anyone did the upgrade from 4.5.2 to
4.9.2 successfully ? On my production server I have 4.5.2 installed from
Shapeblue repositories  ( ACS 4.5.2, basic network, ESXI 5.5- update 3 )

 

 

 

Thanks in advance.

Cristian

Re: Stratostack Billing Portal

[Nathan Bowyer]

It does have a US centric view (TaxCloud).  I didn't see too many other decent 
tax-calculating services though, and its a pretty complex issue to handle 
internally.  Is the problem Taxcloud itself, or that Stratostack doesn't handle 
taxing cases outside the US?

The first thing I would look at doing is adding Stripe and possibly Paypal.  
Stripe would also pick up Bitcoin payments.

> On Jan 16, 2017, at 6:16 AM, Outback Dingo  wrote:
> 
> The only issue I have with the model is its forcing TaxCloud and
> Authorize.Net Account requirement. Be nice if it was more felxible
> and accepted like Paypal, bitcoin, and others.
> 
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 6:31 AM, benoit lair  wrote:
>> Hello Nathan,
>> 
>> Your software seems very interesting to my point of view.
>> I'm going to reserve some time to do a POC with your software and my
>> cloudstack :)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2017-01-11 13:19 GMT+01:00 Simon Weller :
>> 
>>> Hi Nathan,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I actually wasn't aware of this project, it looks pretty interesting,
>>> especially on the billing side. I'd suggest you may also want to send an
>>> email to the dev list for feedback.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - Si
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Nathan Bowyer 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 10:25 AM
>>> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Subject: Stratostack Billing Portal
>>> 
>>> Hello everyone,
>>> 
>>> I am the primary author of the Stratostack billing portal system (
>>> stratostack.org / github.com/1stel/stratostack-
>>> portal).  Recently I've been
>>> looking at restarting active development of the project, but I wanted some
>>> community feedback on the project.  Is this project, or what the project
>>> could be, useful to the community?  Is it something you want and are
>>> interested in?
>>> 
>>> Stratostack was originally designed to also support a reseller model of
>>> IaaS services.  That is, a Cloud Provider could turn up the part of
>>> Stratostack that generates usable billing records, and then another entity
>>> could turn up the portal side and sell those services at some markup.  Is
>>> that model even viable and worth continuing to support?  Several of the
>>> design decisions about the project were heavily influenced by this decision.
>>> 
>>> Last, if you have any questions about the project I'll be happy to answer
>>> as best I can.
>>> 
>>> Nathan
>>> 

Dedicated IP range for SSVM/CPVM

[Rene Moser]

Hi

We would like to make a change proposal for SSVM/CPVM.

Currently, the SSVM/CPVM get an IP from the "default" pool of
vlaniprange which is the from the account "system"


  "vlaniprange": [
{
  "account": "system",
  "domain": "ROOT",
  "endip": "10.101.0.250",
  "forvirtualnetwork": true,
  "gateway": "10.101.0.1",
  "netmask": "255.255.255.0",
  "startip": "10.101.0.11",
  ...

},


  "systemvm": [
{
  "activeviewersessions": 0,
  "gateway": "10.101.0.1",
  "hypervisor": "VMware",
  "id": "d9a8abe5-b1e0-47d6-8f39-01b48ff1e0fa",
  "name": "v-5877-VM",
  "privatenetmask": "255.255.255.0",
  "publicip": "10.101.0.113",
  "publicnetmask": "255.255.255.0",
  "state": "Running",
  ...
},


For security considerations we would like to define a dedicated IP range
for SSVM/CPVM, which, preferably, should not have any relation to the
default pool range.

The default pool range should be used for userVMs only. To indicate the
use I propolse 2 new flags, which only considered for "account=system"
and indicate if the range can be used for userVMs or/and systemVMs.

For backwards compatibility this would be the default

"foruservms": true,
"forsystemvms": true,


to have a separate range for UserVMs/SystemVMs, it would look like


  "vlaniprange": [
{
  "account": "system",
  "domain": "ROOT",
  "foruservms": true,
  "forsystemvms": false,
  "endip": "192.160.123.250",
  "forvirtualnetwork": true,
  "gateway": "192.160.123.1",
  "netmask": "255.255.255.0",
  "startip": "192.160.123.11",
  ...

},

  "vlaniprange": [
{
  "account": "system",
  "domain": "ROOT",
  "foruservms": false,
  "forsystemvms": true,
  "endip": "10.101.0.250",
  "forvirtualnetwork": true,
  "gateway": "10.101.0.1",
  "netmask": "255.255.255.0",
  "startip": "10.101.0.11",
  ...

},


Does anyone has see any conflicts with this proposal?

Regards
René

Re: Welcoming Simon Weller & Paul Angus to the PMC

[Simon Weller]

Thank you all and of course, congratulations to Paul!



From: Syed Ahmed 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 8:06 AM
To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Welcoming Simon Weller & Paul Angus to the PMC

Congratulations Paul and Simon! Well deserved.

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Paul Angus 
wrote:

> Thank you guys and let me add my congratulations to Simon too !
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul Angus
>
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Rae [mailto:i...@cloudops.com]
> Sent: 15 January 2017 15:57
> To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org; Glenn Wagner 
> Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Welcoming Simon Weller & Paul Angus to the PMC
>
> Bravo!
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Glenn Wagner 
> wrote:
> > Congratulations guys, well done to you both.
> >
> > Glenn
> >
> >
> > glenn.wag...@shapeblue.com
> > www.shapeblue.com
> > First Floor, Victoria Centre, 7 Victoria Street, Somerset West, Cape
> > Town  7129South Africa @shapeblue
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Will Stevens
> > >
> > Reply-to: 
> > To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org
> >  > c...@cloudstack.apache.org%3e>>, users@cloudstack.apache.org
> >  > 20%3cus...@cloudstack.apache.org%3e>>
> > Subject: Welcoming Simon Weller & Paul Angus to the PMC
> > Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 11:30:20 -0500
> >
> >
> > Join me in welcoming Simon Weller and Paul Angus to the Apache
> > CloudStack PMC.  Both have been dedicated members of the community and
> > it is with great pleasure that we welcome them to the PMC.
> >
> > Next time you see either of them, buy them a drink.  :)
> >
> > Welcome guys...
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ian Rae
> CEO | PDG
> c: 514.944.4008
>
> CloudOps | Cloud Infrastructure and Networking Solutions 
> www.cloudops.com
> | 420 rue Guy | Montreal | Canada | H3J 1S6
>

RE: Welcoming Simon Weller & Paul Angus to the PMC

[Paul Angus]

Thank you guys and let me add my congratulations to Simon too !



Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 


-Original Message-
From: Ian Rae [mailto:i...@cloudops.com] 
Sent: 15 January 2017 15:57
To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org; Glenn Wagner 
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Welcoming Simon Weller & Paul Angus to the PMC

Bravo!

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Glenn Wagner  
wrote:
> Congratulations guys, well done to you both.
>
> Glenn
>
>
> glenn.wag...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> First Floor, Victoria Centre, 7 Victoria Street, Somerset West, Cape 
> Town  7129South Africa @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Will Stevens 
> >
> Reply-to: 
> To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org 
>  c...@cloudstack.apache.org%3e>>, users@cloudstack.apache.org 
>  20%3cus...@cloudstack.apache.org%3e>>
> Subject: Welcoming Simon Weller & Paul Angus to the PMC
> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 11:30:20 -0500
>
>
> Join me in welcoming Simon Weller and Paul Angus to the Apache 
> CloudStack PMC.  Both have been dedicated members of the community and 
> it is with great pleasure that we welcome them to the PMC.
>
> Next time you see either of them, buy them a drink.  :)
>
> Welcome guys...
>



--
Ian Rae
CEO | PDG
c: 514.944.4008

CloudOps | Cloud Infrastructure and Networking Solutions www.cloudops.com | 420 
rue Guy | Montreal | Canada | H3J 1S6

Re: Stratostack Billing Portal

[Outback Dingo]

The only issue I have with the model is its forcing TaxCloud and
Authorize.Net Account requirement. Be nice if it was more felxible
and accepted like Paypal, bitcoin, and others.

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 6:31 AM, benoit lair  wrote:
> Hello Nathan,
>
> Your software seems very interesting to my point of view.
> I'm going to reserve some time to do a POC with your software and my
> cloudstack :)
>
>
>
> 2017-01-11 13:19 GMT+01:00 Simon Weller :
>
>> Hi Nathan,
>>
>>
>> I actually wasn't aware of this project, it looks pretty interesting,
>> especially on the billing side. I'd suggest you may also want to send an
>> email to the dev list for feedback.
>>
>>
>> - Si
>>
>>
>> 
>> From: Nathan Bowyer 
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 10:25 AM
>> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Stratostack Billing Portal
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I am the primary author of the Stratostack billing portal system (
>> stratostack.org / github.com/1stel/stratostack-
>> portal).  Recently I've been
>> looking at restarting active development of the project, but I wanted some
>> community feedback on the project.  Is this project, or what the project
>> could be, useful to the community?  Is it something you want and are
>> interested in?
>>
>> Stratostack was originally designed to also support a reseller model of
>> IaaS services.  That is, a Cloud Provider could turn up the part of
>> Stratostack that generates usable billing records, and then another entity
>> could turn up the portal side and sell those services at some markup.  Is
>> that model even viable and worth continuing to support?  Several of the
>> design decisions about the project were heavily influenced by this decision.
>>
>> Last, if you have any questions about the project I'll be happy to answer
>> as best I can.
>>
>> Nathan
>>