cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daan Hoogland <DHoogl...@schubergphilis.com>
Subject RE: network guru refactor proposal
Date Sun, 12 May 2013 14:40:06 GMT
Hello Hiroaki,

I assume so as well, though UI must admit this is because I do not see a clear difference
between 'isolation method' and 'broadcast domain type'. It is the latter I am targeting. The
idea is to specify a uri for the desired net, the private gateway interface should be on and
let the scheme decide what kind of broadcast domain( == isolation method???) we are planning
to be in.

Regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: Hiroaki KAWAI [mailto:kawai@stratosphere.co.jp] 
Sent: zaterdag 11 mei 2013 10:28
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: network guru refactor proposal

+1 for the basic idea. Non-guest networks are not easy to
virtualize now. I assume you're talking about the isolation method in non-guest networks.


(2013/05/07 20:53), Daan Hoogland wrote:
> LS,
>
> I want to refactor the network guru hierarchy to put som functionality in abstract base
classes. This will come down to extending the hierarchy for guest networks to include all
gurus. Are there any thoughts or gotchas to share?
>
> This would be the second part of a three stage strategy I have to support creating a
nicira hosted private gateway for vpcs.
> The first one is making sure vlans are specified as uri throughout the system. I will
be submitting a patch for review for this part soon.
> The last part will be creating a guru based on Hugo's NiciraNvpGuestNetworkGuru.
>
> Any comment is appreciated,
> Daan Hoogland
>


Mime
View raw message