cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daan Hoogland <>
Subject Re: Handling Public network traffic in a plugin
Date Tue, 03 Sep 2013 12:25:48 GMT
H Dave,

It seems we are working on similar things, David. My take on things is
to add a network offering for vpc private gateways. I extend the api
call with the optional netoffer. It sounds like you are doing
something slightly different but we are bound to break each others
code as well, even when i am working with private networks and you
with public ones.

In general the extensibility of net-implementations does need some
work. replacing the guru does not seem like the way to go to me. I'd
say that the offer is what drives what guru/element to use.


On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Dave Cahill <> wrote:
> Hi,
> A few months back I mailed the list to explain how (and why) the MidoNet
> plugin handles Public traffic as well as Guest traffic - see [1] for
> details. Essentially, we plug the System VMs into the virtual network the
> same way we plug in guest VMs, and the virtual network takes care of all
> routing between the public IPs and the VMs in the virtual network.
> It's kind of cool. :)
> Since there is no real support for plugins handling Public traffic, our
> implementation just overrides the existing PublicNetworkGuru in the
> component XML files. This means it's easy for CloudStack devs to break the
> integration without realizing. For example, a recent change [2] made it
> such that Providers are only called if they are in the network service map
> for a network. This is a smart change, but since the default network
> offering for Public networks has no Providers defined, the MidoNet provider
> no longer gets called, and Public traffic doesn't work correctly.
> I can work around that by manually (in the db) adding MidoNet as a provider
> for the default System network offering whenever I deploy, but I think that
> might make it even easier for people to break the integration! Would it
> make sense to add MidoNet as a provider on the default System network
> offering upstream?
> Any other thoughts / comments also welcome.
> Thanks,
> Dave.
> [1]
> [2]

View raw message