The P in VPN stands for Private. I am not sure I understand what sharing
VPN's across tenants would actually mean. It's an interesting concept,
but there's not enough details that would justify the extra layer of
complexity. As for VPNaaS I think there are a few existing unaddressed
needs that make this particular request not worth pursuing right now.
We'll have to reassess later on.
** Changed in: neutron
Status: Confirmed => Won't Fix
** Changed in: neutron
Assignee: zhaobo (zhaobo6) => (unassigned)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Yahoo!
Engineering Team, which is subscribed to neutron.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1524264
Title:
[RFE] Role-based access control for VPNaaS resources
Status in neutron:
Won't Fix
Bug description:
[Application scene]
Tenant A have a vpn, and A doesn't want to share own vpn to those A doesn't
believe or no payment, so tenant A may be the vpn supplier. Tenant B want to
use the vpn through A shared to B. Generally, one share to specified ones to
use owned vpn is an normal thing.
[Proposal]
Now vpn didn't contain the 'shared' field, so we should extend it and fulfill
the function of share to specified tenants based on rbac policies.
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1524264/+subscriptions
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yahoo-eng-team
Post to : yahoo-eng-team@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yahoo-eng-team
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
