incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Abhinandan Prateek <Abhinandan.Prat...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: Functional Specification for the multiple IPs per NIC
Date Fri, 15 Feb 2013 03:41:34 GMT
Jayapal,
  Vmops is a plugin that get instrumented into the xenserver host. You
need to invoke the plugin from
CirtixResourceBase. Usually the vmops plugin will invoke one of the script
that is on that particular host
Again copied by cloudstack when that host was added.

  Anthony,
   It will be good if you can review the changes Jayapal is going to make
to security groups for additional ips.

-abhi

On 14/02/13 8:13 PM, "Jayapal Reddy Uradi" <jayapalreddy.uradi@citrix.com>
wrote:

>Anthony,
>
>What is the best way to work  on  xenserver "vmops".
> I am writing  new methods in vmops file for security groups rules for
>the vm secondary ips.
>If I add a new method how to call this method from the host.
>I am not able to call 'vmops <methodname>  <args>' on the host.
>
>Security groups iptables changes for MIPN:
>---------------------------------------------------
>In security groups in order to allow VM secondary IPs to reach out
>changing the iptables rules as below.
>
>The current rules are comparing the source/destination of the VM ip and
>allowing only the traffic to/from the VM with VM IP.
>With MIPN feature VM nic can have multiple IPs. So the iptables rules
>source/destination ip option is changed to  IPSET match.
>VM ip addresses (primary and secondary) are added to the ipset.
>
>Ex:
>-A i-2-61-def -s 10.147.41.238 -m physdev  --physdev-in vif12.0
>--physdev-is-bridged -j i-2-61-VM-eg
>
>With ipset:
>-A i-2-61-def -m set --set  i-2-61 src   -m physdev  --physdev-in vif12.0
>--physdev-is-bridged -j i-2-61-VM-eg
>
>Also arptables rules for secondary ip addresses are added.
>
>Please let me know if you have any comments.
>
>Thanks,
>Jayapal
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:Abhinandan.Prateek@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:52 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Functional Specification for the multiple IPs per NIC
>>
>> Jayapal,
>>   We should not create multiple APIs for diff outputs, when a param can
>>give
>> you control over output from an existing API.
>>
>> -abhi
>>
>> On 30/01/13 12:58 AM, "Chiradeep Vittal" <Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >On 1/29/13 8:23 AM, "Jayapal Reddy Uradi"
>> ><jayapalreddy.uradi@citrix.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>listNicIps/listNicSecondaryIps API  lists  the only the secondary ip
>> >>addresses .
>> >>do we need to list the both primary and secondary ip addresses in the
>> >>list API ?
>> >
>> >Yes. Why do we need a listNicSecondaryIps API? Why not just enhance
>> >listNics?
>> >
>> >>
>> >>The current load balancing  'assignToLoadBalancerRule' API takes list
>> >>virtualmachineids  argument and configures the LB for primary IP
>> >>addresses.
>> >>
>> >>To configure the LB for secondary ip addresses adding an optional
>> >>argument to API.
>> >>The optional argument vmIpaddrs takes the list of  ip addresses of the
>> >>corresponding virtualmachineids   vm list parameter.
>> >>When vmipaddrs is not passed LB is configured for the VMs primary ip
>> >>addreses.
>> >
>> >I think this can be handled with an enhancement separate from this
>> >feature. Let us leave the API as is.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Thanks,
>> >>Jayapal
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Jayapal Reddy Uradi [mailto:jayapalreddy.uradi@citrix.com]
>> >>> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 9:15 PM
>> >>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>> Subject: RE: Functional Specification for the multiple IPs per NIC
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Chiradeep.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for the review comments.
>> >>>
>> >>> I will change  API names to 'addIpToNic' and 'removeIpToNic' ,
>> >>>update the FS  with API names.
>> >>> I will also look into the  meta data  for secondary ip and include
>> >>>this section in  the FS.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>> Jayapal
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> > -----Original Message-----
>> >>> > From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com]
>> >>> > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:05 PM
>> >>> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>> > Subject: Re: Functional Specification for the multiple IPs per
NIC
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I didn't notice the API specification before in the FS.
>> >>> > The verb 'associate' is used with the public ip (for static nat),
>> >>> > so it will introduce confusion. I prefer "add" or "assign"
>> >>> > Similarly, 'unassociate' doesn't make any sense
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Also, why insist on 'secondary' in the API? A nic cannot be
>> >>> > created without any ip addresses (at least currently), so I would
>> >>> > leave out the 'secondary' part in the API as well.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Last, the instance meta-data makes available the primary ip, the
>> >>> > secondary ips should be made available as well.
>> >>> > See
>> >>> > http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/AESDG-
>> chapter-
>> >>> > instanceda
>> >>> > ta.html#instancedata-data-categories
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On 1/18/13 3:40 AM, "Abhinandan Prateek"
>> >>> > <Abhinandan.Prateek@citrix.com>
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > >Jayapal,
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >   The FS seems to be updated with the feedback received on
the
>> >>> > >forum, I guess you can start implementation.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >-abhi
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >On 18/01/13 4:33 PM, "Jayapal Reddy Uradi"
>> >>> > ><jayapalreddy.uradi@citrix.com>
>> >>> > >wrote:
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >>Update the FS with the below discussions.
>> >>> > >>
>> >>> > >>Please find updated FS below.
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Multiple+IP
>> >>> >>+a
>> >>> > dd
>> >>> > >>res
>> >>> > >>s
>> >>> > >>+per+NIC
>> >>> > >>
>> >>> > >>Thanks,
>> >>> > >>Jayapal
>> >>> > >>
>> >>> > >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> > >>> From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com]
>> >>> > >>> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:51 PM
>> >>> > >>> To: CloudStack DeveloperList
>> >>> > >>> Subject: Re: Functional Specification for the multiple
IPs per
>> >>>NIC
>> >>> > >>>
>> >>> > >>> I hope we consider the case when the ip is removed
from the
>> >>> > >>>nic while there  is a PF rule to that ip.
>> >>> > >>>
>> >>> > >>> On 1/16/13 9:10 PM, "Jayapal Reddy Uradi"
>> >>> > >>><jayapalreddy.uradi@citrix.com>
>> >>> > >>> wrote:
>> >>> > >>>
>> >>> > >>> >Hi Chiradeep,
>> >>> > >>> >
>> >>> > >>> >Now the VM NIC will have multiple IPs so for creating
PF for
>> >>> > >>> >secondary ip address  we will pass VM id and (optional
>> >>> > >>> >argument) VM ip address
>> >>> > >>>to
>> >>> > >>> >the API.
>> >>> > >>> >When VM ip address is passed it checks the whether
the ip
>> >>>belongs
>> >>> > >>> >to the VM or not and configures the PF for the
VM IP address.
>> >>> > >>> >
>> >>> > >>> >When VM ip address argument is not passed to the
API then it
>> >>> > >>> >works in older way.
>> >>> > >>> >When VM NIC has NO secondary ip address also we
can pass VM
>> >>> > >>> >id and VM primary ip address to VM ipaddress argument
to API
>> >>> > >>> >to configure
>> >>> > PF.
>> >>> > >>> >
>> >>> > >>> >Thanks,
>> >>> > >>> >Jayapal
>> >>> > >>> >
>> >>> > >>> >
>> >>> > >>> >
>> >>> > >>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> > >>> >> From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com]
>> >>> > >>> >> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:45 AM
>> >>> > >>> >> To: CloudStack DeveloperList
>> >>> > >>> >> Subject: Re: Functional Specification for
the multiple IPs
>> >>> > >>> >> per NIC
>> >>> > >>> >>
>> >>> > >>> >> Note also that the createPortForwardingRule
API takes a vm
>> >>> > >>> >>id and network  id, based on the assumption
of a single ip
>> >>> > >>> >>per
>> >>>NIC.
>> >>> > >>> >>This may need an  additional parameter of
ip (or make the vm
>> >>> > >>> >>id
>> >>> optional).
>> >>> > >>> >>
>> >>> > >>> >> On 1/15/13 9:35 AM, "Anthony Xu" <Xuefei.Xu@citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>> > >>> >>
>> >>> > >>> >> >Thanks for bringing this up,
>> >>> > >>> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >> >For security group, we may need to handle
following
>> >>> > >>> >> >things,
>> >>> > >>> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >> >As you mentioned,
>> >>> > >>> >> >Anti-spoofing rules need to be updated,
when secondary IP
>> >>> > >>> >> >is associate/dissociate to NIC.
>> >>> > >>> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >> >And
>> >>> > >>> >> >Security group rule can base on cidr
and it can base on
>> >>> > >>> >> >account/security group, For example a
security group rule
>> >>> > >>> >> >can allow all VMs in another account/security
group to
>> >>> > >>> >> >access VMs in this security group.
>> >>> > >>> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >> >In this case,
>> >>> > >>> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >> >When secondary IP is associate/dissociate
to NIC. The
>> >>> > >>> >> >related security group rule based on
account/security
>> >>> > >>> >> >group need to
>> >>>be
>> >>> > >>> >> >resent to reflect the IP change in this
security group.
>> >>> > >>> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >> >Anthony
>> >>> > >>> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> > >>> >> >> From: Jayapal Reddy Uradi
>> >>> > >>> >> >> [mailto:jayapalreddy.uradi@citrix.com]
>> >>> > >>> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013
5:17 AM
>> >>> > >>> >> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>> > >>> >> >> Subject: RE: Functional Specification
for the multiple
>> >>> > >>> >> >> IPs per
>> >>> > >>>NIC
>> >>> > >>> >> >>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> Please find the updated FS in below
link.
>> >>> > >>> >> >>
>> >>> > >>> >>
>> >>> > >>>
>> >>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Multiple+IP
>> >>> > +a
>> >>> > >>> d
>> >>> > >>> >> >> dr
>> >>> > >>> >> >> ess+per+NIC
>> >>> > >>> >> >>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> I want to discuss the MIPN case
for  shared networks.
>> >>> > >>> >> >>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> I observed VM specific security
groups iptables rules in
>> >>> > >>> >> >> basic zone, in which we are allowing
 egress traffic
>> >>> > >>> >> >> from the guest VM primary
>> >>> > >>> >> >> (dhcp) address only.
>> >>> > >>> >> >> If we add another IP to the NIC
we should update the
>> >>> > >>> >> >> security groups to allow the egress
traffic from the new
>> >>>ip.
>> >>> > >>> >> >>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> Example Current  rule:  It allows
traffic from the i-2-3
>> >>> > >>> >> >> VM's
>> >>> > >>> >> >> 10.147.41.239 IP only.
>> >>> > >>> >> >> 0     0 i-2-3-TEST-eg  all  -- 
*      *
>> >>>10.147.41.239
>> >>> > >>> >> >> 0.0.0.0/0           PHYSDEV match
--physdev-in vif7.0
>> >>> > >>>--physdev-is-
>> >>> > >>> >> >> bridged
>> >>> > >>> >> >>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> We should update security group
rules each time we
>> >>>associate
>> >>> > >>> >> >> secondary IP to NIC.
>> >>> > >>> >> >>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> Please let me know if you have any
comments or
>> >>> > >>> >> >> suggestion for the above .
>> >>> > >>> >> >>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> Thanks,
>> >>> > >>> >> >> Jayapal
>> >>> > >>> >> >>
>> >>> > >>> >> >>
>> >>> > >>> >> >>
>> >>> > >>> >> >>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > From: John Kinsella [mailto:jlk@stratosec.co]
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > Sent: Wednesday, December 19,
2012 10:59 PM
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > Subject: Re: Functional Specification
for the multiple
>> >>>IPs
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > per NIC
>> >>> > >>> >> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > 'morning Hari. I can think
of at least one use case
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > where allowing
>> >>> > >>> >> >> the "user"
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > to specify the IP would be
required - when migrating
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > an
>> >>>IP
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > from one
>> >>> > >>> >> >> CAP to
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > ACS or from one VM to another.
>> >>> > >>> >> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > Anyways - I think what the
real answer to your
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > question
>> >>>is
>> >>> > >>>would
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > be
>> >>> > >>> >> >> to have
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > a granular security model around
the API calls. At
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > that point you
>> >>> > >>> >> >> could specify
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > what users/groups have the
ability to assign specific
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > IPs to a
>> >>> > >>> >> >> specific instance.
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > So I'd vote to implement for
now, and attack a
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > granular api security
>> >>> > >>> >> >> model
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > sooner rather than later.
>> >>> > >>> >> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > John
>> >>> > >>> >> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > On Dec 18, 2012, at 4:15 PM,
Hari Kannan
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > <hari.kannan@citrix.com>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> >  wrote:
>> >>> > >>> >> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > Regarding " User can specify
the  IP address from
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > the guest subnet
>> >>> > >>> >> >> if
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > not CS picks the IP from
the guest subnet " comment
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > in the FS
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > I don't see a need to
do this - because, it is a
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > shared network,
>> >>> > >>> >> >> how
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > does he know what is used
up and what is not? So, he
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > could go
>> >>> > >>> >> >> through
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > a sequence of steps only
to get an error message
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > back that it is
>> >>> > >>> >> >> not
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > possible (and keep doing
this until success)
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > One possibility is telling
him what is available -
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > it may not be a
>> >>> > >>> >> >> big
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > deal to reveal the used/unused
IPs in isolated
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > network (although it would
be hard to show from a
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > large CIDR what is used/available),
>> >>> > >>> >> >> but
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > we wont even be able to
tell him what is used/unused
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > in a shared network -
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > Any thoughts?
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > Hari Kannan
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > -----Original Message-----
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > From: John Kinsella [mailto:jlk@stratosec.co]
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > Sent: Tuesday, December
18, 2012 10:36 AM
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > Subject: Re: Functional
Specification for the
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > multiple IPs
>> >>> > >>>per
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > NIC
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > Is there any logic behind
30? At some point, we're
>> >>>going
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > to
>> >>> > >>>be
>> >>> > >>> >> >> asked,
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > so I'd like to have a
decent answer. :)
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > On the rest of this, I'd
like to get some level of
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > consensus on the
>> >>> > >>> >> >> design.
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > What looks best to me:
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > * Improve UserData/CloudInit
support in CloudStack
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > (I'm willing to work on
this, consider it important)
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > - allow expiration of
data,
>> >>> > >>> >> >> wider
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > variety of data supported
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > * Create the multi-IPs-per-NIC
code to get IPs via
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > CloudInit (Need
>> >>> > >>> >> >> to
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > think through Windows
equivalent)
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > * Update the password
changing script to use
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > CloudInit
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > Thoughts? Or Jayapal have
you already started work
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > on the multi-IP
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > feature?
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > On Dec 18, 2012, at 2:03
AM, Jayapal Reddy Uradi
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > <jayapalreddy.uradi@citrix.com>
wrote:
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >> Regarding IP limit,
 it can be made as configurable
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >> using global
>> >>> > >>> >> >> settings and
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > default value will be 30.
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >> Thanks,
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >> Jayapal
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> -----Original
Message-----
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> From: Chiradeep
Vittal
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> [mailto:Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com]
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> Sent: Monday,
December 17, 2012 12:59 PM
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> To: CloudStack
DeveloperList
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> Subject: Re: Functional
Specification for the
>> >>>multiple
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> IPs per
>> >>> > >>> >> >> NIC
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> In basic/shared
networks the allocation is bounded
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> by what is already
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> "used- up". To
prevent tenants from hogging all
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> the available
ips, there needs to be limits.
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> On 12/15/12 8:38
AM, "John Kinsella"
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> <jlk@stratosec.co>
>> >>> > >>>wrote:
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>> I'd remove
the limitation of having 30 IPs per
>> >>>interface.
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>> Modern OSes
can support way more.
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>> Why no support
for basic networking? I can see a
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>> small hosting
provider with a basic setup wanting
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>> to manage
web
>> >>> > >>> servers...
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>> John
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>> On Dec 14,
2012, at 9:37 AM, Jayapal Reddy Uradi
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>> <jayapalreddy.uradi@citrix.com>
wrote:
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>> Hi All,
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>> Current
guest VM by default having one NIC and
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>> one IP
address
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > assigned.
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>> If your
wants extra IP for the guest VM, there
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>> no provision
>> >>> > >>> >> >> from
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>> the CS.
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>> Using
multiple IP address per NIC feature CS can
>> >>> > >>>associate
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>> IP address
for the NIC,  user can take that IP
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>> and assign
it to
>> >>> > >>> >> >> the VM.
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>> Please
find the FS for  the more details.
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> >
>> >>> > >>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Multipl
>> >>> > >>> e+
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > IP
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>> +
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>> a
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> dd
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>> res
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>> s+per+NIC
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>> Please
provide your comments on the FS.
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>> Thanks,
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>> jayapal
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>> Stratosec
- Secure Infrastructure as a Service
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>> o: 415.315.9385
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>> @johnlkinsella
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>>>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >>
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure
as a Service
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > o: 415.315.9385
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > > @johnlkinsella
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure
as a Service
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > o: 415.315.9385
>> >>> > >>> >> >> > @johnlkinsella
>> >>> > >>> >> >
>> >>> > >>> >
>> >>> > >>
>> >>> > >
>> >>
>> >
>


Mime
View raw message