cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chiradeep Vittal <Chiradeep.Vit...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: VPG only in VPC VRs?
Date Fri, 23 Aug 2013 23:26:20 GMT
Slight correction: the templates are exactly the same. No difference.
Scripts may be different due to hot plug

On 8/23/13 1:32 PM, "Alena Prokharchyk" <Alena.Prokharchyk@citrix.com>
wrote:

>Also note that VPC VR uses different template and diff script sets from
>regular Isolated network's VR. Before the migration, we have to:
>
>1) Merge code base for VR and VPC VR. Use the same template for both.
>2)  As a part of the Java code merge:
>
>  *   The current VPC VR uses hot plug nic mechanism ­ originally it
>starts up with just 1 Control Nic, and (n) Public Nics + (n) Guest nics
>are being plugged/unplugged on demand ­ when Public IP address is
>acquired from the new Vlan, or when new Guest network is implemented in
>the VPC. This logic is handled by Java code.
>  *   Regular VR in Isolated network always starts up with pre-defined
>set of nics ­ Control, Public and Guest. There can be only one situation
>when new Nic is added to the VR ­ when new public IP address is acquired
>from the Vlan diff from the Source nat IP vlan. In this case we do plug
>the nic on the VR, but this logic is handled by the VR scripts. WE don't
>even create a nic entry in the DB for this new Nic.
>  *   After the merge, VR in regular Isolated network should also
>implement plug/unplug logic.
>
>3) Add the DB upgrade for existing customers (including template upgrade
>for existing Vrs)
>
>There more to do as a part of this fix, listed the above off the top of
>my head.
>
>-alena.
>
>From: Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com<mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com>>
>Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>"
><dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>
>Date: Friday, August 23, 2013 12:30 PM
>To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>"
><dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>
>Cc: "jeffrey.mcgovern@sungard.com<mailto:jeffrey.mcgovern@sungard.com>"
><jeffrey.mcgovern@sungard.com<mailto:jeffrey.mcgovern@sungard.com>>
>Subject: Re: VPG only in VPC VRs?
>
>I agree with Chiradeep, but it brings up a point that in some future
>release we probably need to convert/migrate existing VR/isolated
>network combos into VPCs so we can deprecate them entirely, as well as
>migrate the applicable api calls into creating the functionally
>equivalent VPCs... or something like that.
>
>I think VPC is probably also lacking in a few features yet, so they're
>not quite a replacement at the moment. Remote access VPN for example.
>
>On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
><Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com<mailto:Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com>> wrote:
>Are you asking why VR for isolated networks does not have this feature?
>I feel that isolated networks are legacy and whatever you want to do with
>isolated networks you should be able to do with a VPC in a single tier.
>
>
>On 8/23/13 11:19 AM, "Chip Childers"
><chip.childers@sungard.com<mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com>> wrote:
>
>Can someone explain the history / reasoning around why VPG's are only
>available for VPC VRs?
>
>And while we're at it...  how about the same question around
>Site-to-site VPN's (and client VPN's in reverse)?
>
>Thanks!
>
>-chip
>
>


Mime
View raw message