cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Reategui <car...@reategui.com>
Subject Re: vSwitch vs bridge
Date Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:47:00 GMT
I think it will be easier for me to stick with basic network.
Can I use vSwitch with basic network if I do not use security groups?


On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Carlos Reategui <carlos@reategui.com>wrote:

>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Chiradeep Vittal <
> Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> The system vms need a public network, so at least 2 "public" Ips.
>>
>
> Can I just allocate a range of IPs within my existing 192.168.1.0/24 for
> this and tag it with the public VLAN id? or do I need to create a new
> virtual subnet?
>
>
>>
>> On 8/15/13 11:14 AM, "Carlos Reategui" <carlos@reategui.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Thanks for the response.
>> >
>> >I am a complete novice when it comes to VLANs so hopefully I can pull
>> this
>> >off.  My hosts/guest physical network is using a Dell PowerConnect 2848
>> >which says it supports VLAN tags so I'll look at its docs to see what I
>> >need to do to configure it.
>> >
>> >You mention that the guest and public traffic must be tagged.  Since I
>> >will
>> >not be using public IPs (or the notion of a public network) can I skip
>> the
>> >public network or do I need to define it?  My 192.168.1.0/24 network is
>> >already NATed out if the guests need outbound access to the internet.
>> > Inbound internet traffic is not available.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Venkata SwamyBabu Budumuru <
>> >venkataswamybabu.budumuru@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Currently CS supports security groups functionality only with bridge
>> >> networking mode.
>> >>
>> >> If you are ok with out security groups  then with advanced shared you
>> >>will
>> >> be able to achieve what you are looking for. Advanced shared expects
>> >> tagged VLANs for guest and public traffic types.
>> >>
>> >> On 15/08/13 5:35 AM, "Carlos Reategui" <carlos@reategui.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Hi All,
>> >> >
>> >> >The Cloudstack docs for XenServer say to use bridge networking when
>> >>using
>> >> >basic networking.  Is this still the case with CS 4.1 and XS 6.1?
>> >> >
>> >> >XS 6.1 introduced LACP which I would prefer to use but it is not
>> >>supported
>> >> >with bridge networking.  I think my storage network would benefit from
>> >>it.
>> >> >
>> >> >If still required for basic networking then can someone walk me
>> through
>> >> >how
>> >> >to setup an advanced network that behaves like a basic, shared, no
>> >> >security
>> >> >group network.  I have 8 nics in 2 bonds (4 nics each -- one labeled
>> >> >storage for NFS SR and the other cloud-public for management/guest
>> >> >traffic).  The hosts and the guests are in 192.168.1.0/24 and the
>> >>storage
>> >> >network is isolated on its own in a 192.168.200.0/24.
>> >> >
>> >> >thanks,
>> >> >Carlos
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message