Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 00189E79C for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 02:31:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 93437 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2013 02:31:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-users-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 93402 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2013 02:31:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-users-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 93393 invoked by uid 99); 1 Mar 2013 02:31:45 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 02:31:45 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of pythonee@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.47] (HELO mail-pb0-f47.google.com) (209.85.160.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 02:31:40 +0000 Received: by mail-pb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id rp2so1438948pbb.34 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:31:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=jcYXk7tnrADNzCqJKbrdwmPuecg8coz8MhY0Vwa0M7o=; b=Pd+VKjpxI3AUFcD2k13KKE4CJ5FqZT1nvEQgvW4Or3SuGD5cW4AgMsymgdQ0+IThUP rZhm3Cng2vczkUiczeUxWvLSeRQs0x/THPq4waHH6qL1u4CemOOh6bdLd6CFP7Mw5xwH M2b1DQqk6N+TyQSPCxwQZtTnaKKojFNXw5oEm7WzmPLuEG+P7YOYlupioyPMUpn4uSW5 nB4jSSBe/I1qVOvvom3mefSdR3FVzB1ve7Jh2hv3byEBlJ5cQJZkpoVjzp8UIzUOcVba 9EJMqGtmOeOytFcjs7FYnoAHnQLFFAInpVg8nH4BTMwrRW4SiKCjB9LKQ4uOZcoScuvY qLGA== X-Received: by 10.66.52.50 with SMTP id q18mr16672988pao.16.1362105080011; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:31:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.43.133 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:30:39 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: pythonee@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: From: Wang Fei Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:30:39 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: How the vm<->vm communicate each other? To: Bryan Whitehead Cc: "cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec543098a70eb0404d6d3cd58 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --bcaec543098a70eb0404d6d3cd58 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 What if scenario 1 in basic network? It have to support security group to isolate resource belong to different accounts. in that way VMs have to communicate with VR! is that correct? ---- best regards On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Bryan Whitehead wrote: > As long as VM's are in the same vlan all VM's can communicate. Account > settings or where the VM's are running should be irrelevant Your switches > should support tagging and should be setup in trunk mode or some other vlan > access mode. > > > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Wang Fei wrote: > >> Scenario I : >> All VMs belong to one account in the same vlan deploy to the same host. >> >> Scenario II: >> VMs in the same vlan deploy to the same host but belong to different >> accouts. >> >> >> Scenario III: >> VMs in different vlan deploy to the same host and belong to same account. >> >> Scenario IV: >> All VMs belong to one account in the same vlan deploy to the different >> hosts. >> >> >> >> ---- >> best regards >> > > --bcaec543098a70eb0404d6d3cd58--