Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGQtxvbppQ40KMRzGo2XCxGb3DKrtugMGLV+1TrFVVTypKMAOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAGQtxvbppQ40KMRzGo2XCxGb3DKrtugMGLV+1TrFVVTypKMAOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 20:33:09 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CA+2rt42zh2pbmYySrRVDrDi5Qi-g-4JckKF_9X9kA9yGYttANQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: redundant virtual routers for VPCs
From: Sheng Yang <sheng@yasker.org>
To: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
Cc: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, Karl Harris <karl.harris@sungard.com>,
	Alena Prokharchyk <Alena.Prokharchyk@citrix.com>, kishan@cloud.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d2deaf0a62404fb4ac070

--047d7b5d2deaf0a62404fb4ac070
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I would be glad to join.

--Sheng


On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
wrote:

> At Schuberg Philis, the urge to have virtual routers in a redundant
> way is getting to be pressing. It seems Citrix wants to move away from
> it entirely and Sungard is working on it but has to little resources
> for it. Withing our dev group we are now planning a sprint to
> experiment with this subject and then implement or fix the present
> routers to support this. However we would very much like input from
> the people who have already worked on this and are also very willing
> to let them in our sprint-team if they are willing.
>
> So: who want to join in a irc meeting (or conf call) on the subject
> coming week? Dutch people are not in the office on the day after
> ascension so tuesday is our intention.
>
> on behalf of some very impatient operators;)
> --
> Daan
>

--047d7b5d2deaf0a62404fb4ac070--