Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
From: dsclose <git@git.apache.org>
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
References: <git-pr-1519-cloudstack@git.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <git-pr-1519-cloudstack@git.apache.org>
Subject: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Cloudstack 9339: Virtual Routers
 don't ha...
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <20160428161344.120B5DFD9F@git1-us-west.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:13:44 +0000 (UTC)

Github user dsclose commented on the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1519#issuecomment-215480948
  
    @ustcweizhou How would you recommend I separate this? I can imagine separating the issues broadly into two parts:
    
    1. **Routing tables and iptables rules should be properly configured for multiple public NICs.** This PR should allow all features to work on standalone virtual routers. To achieve this, we'd need commits 9ee1eb6, ad9d72f, 8db879e, 788b1be and b19e8aa.
    2. **Public Interfaces should be down on backup RvRs.** This PR would also need to ensure that the transition to master restores the proper routing and tables and iptables rules. Therefore it would need commits d582358 and bf285e1.
    
    I'm reticent to do this because the first PR would not allow multiple subnets to work on RvR setups. Do you agree with this separation and if so how should it be handled?


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastructure@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---