cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>
Subject Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Date Wed, 22 May 2013 13:55:23 GMT
CC'ing Animesh and Alena (since they are the ones offering to be in
contact).

Nicolas - keep in mind that they are US West Coast time.  And when you
say 6PM, which timezone are you in specifically?

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:46:27PM +0200, nicolas.lamirault@orange.com wrote:
> Hi,
> is it possible to have a meeting today, May 22 6pm for Europe ?
> Guillaume is the privileged interlocutor.
> Regards.
> 
> e 21/05/2013 22:20, Chip Childers a écrit :
> >Adding Nicolas to the CC line to be sure that he sees Animesh's offer.
> >
> >Animesh - Nicolas is in the EU, so I'd expect a reply tomorrow?
> >
> >On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 01:01:59PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: nicolas.lamirault@orange.com [mailto:nicolas.lamirault@orange.com]
> >>>Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30 AM
> >>>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >>>Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
> >>>
> >>>Hi
> >>>We didn't so much choose the Security Groups feature as we found that the
> >>>VLAN option, which is the only other option available in 2.2.13, wouldn't
let
> >>>us achieve what we had in mind in terms of Network Architecture.
> >>>This was more of a default choice.
> >>>
> >>>Our need was/is to :
> >>>- use external gateways (don't use Virtual Routers as gateways)
> >>>- use external firewalls
> >>>- have 2 or 3 VLANs, depending on customers' needs, for each "customer
> >>>platform". A "customer platform" in our own terminology is mapped to a
> >>>Domain and an Account in the CS terminology. Those VLAN are affected
> >>>externally by our own tool which call CloudStack and set the appropriate
> >>>VLANs in the Networks attached to a domain.
> >>>- not have overlapping subnets between customers. We split our subnet
> >>>between customers, each has a different one
> >>>
> >>>And we couldn't have that if we had chosen in our Zone configuration an
> >>>Advanced Network with VLAN instead of Security Groups. But we don't use
> >>>the Security Groups feature itself.
> >>>
> >>>Regarding these needs what do you think is the best way for us to upgrade
> >>>from 2.2.13 to 4.1 and not break existing customers ?
> >>[Animesh>] I am still not following the use-case completely, should we do
a go to meeting ? Alena and I can  join. Let me know what time works best for you.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nicolas Lamirault
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou
privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message
par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques
etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme
ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that
may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message
and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have
been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message