cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Syed Ahmed <>
Subject Re: Adding "protocol" parameter to CreateLoadBalancerRule API
Date Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:20:26 GMT
Thanks Alena,

So adding lb_protocol in load_balancing_rules should work fine as long 
as the LB providers don't use the protocol field in the firewall_rules 
table to create the correct type of LB on the device which I don't see ( 
atleast for Netscaler).


On 13-10-28 03:11 PM, Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> Syed, each network rule – PF/LB – currently has entries in in 2 tables. PublicIp/PublicPort/Protocol
+ State/Purpose and other generic fields that are the same for all the networking rules, are
being stored in firewall_rules. Other information is being stored in child tables. As an example,
for PF rules we store rule to vm mapping in portforwardingrules table.
> Firewall_rules table is being used by RulesManagerImpl/NetworkManagerImpl to manage the
life cycle of all the rules extending FirewallRule.
> -Alena.
> From: Syed Ahmed <<>>
> Reply-To: "<>" <<>>
> Date: Monday, October 28, 2013 11:39 AM
> To: "<>" <<>>
> Subject: Adding "protocol" parameter to CreateLoadBalancerRule API
> Hi,
> As a part of implementing the SSL termination functioanlity, I was
> trying to add a protocol parameter to the CreateLoadBalancerRule API so
> that the correct type of LB can be created to which the certificate can
> be bound. I see that the LoadBalancerVO is an extension of FirewallVO
> which has its own protocol field which is used for some other purpose.
> Why do we have Firewall and LB as the same entity? Also, If I were to
> add protocol for the LB, is it OK if I create another field
> "lb_protocol" in the load_balancing_rules table ?
> Thanks,
> -Syed

View raw message