Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of aemneina@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: aemneina@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALFpzo7jQOq4q8YzKWegxt+s7es67etCKP0zeNFhehE3Ow=FYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALFpzo7jQOq4q8YzKWegxt+s7es67etCKP0zeNFhehE3Ow=FYg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ahmad Emneina <aemneina@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:45:43 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAO+D_1yYnDw4kEz9CJtvZny535EfCG-vxW21_ux94kMik5PSUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: basic zone security groups
To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
 <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0c3329a222b04d7da5c01

--047d7bf0c3329a222b04d7da5c01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

If ebtables -F restores vm service(s)... it sounds like a bug.


On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com>wrote:

> Quick question, I deployed a basic zone today on 4.1 for testing, and
> I chose the default network provider WITHOUT security groups. The
> result was that all of the instances deployed could not host services.
> They could get out, but nothing could reach their IPs. I ran an
> 'ebtables -t nat -L' and saw that there were rules set up for each
> instance, but there were no security group settings available to
> adjust. Is this a bug, or was I doing something wrong?
>

--047d7bf0c3329a222b04d7da5c01--