On 1/3/13 4:34 AM, "Likitha Shetty" <likitha.she...@citrix.com> wrote:
>Please find my answers and queries inline. > >Thank you, >Likitha > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com] >> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:03 PM >> To: CloudStack DeveloperList >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM >> >> So: >> 1. There needs to be both kinds of networks available (persistent as >>well as non- >> persistent) in the same zone? >Yes > >> From an end-user perspective this is going to be confusing since she >>has not >> been exposed to this internal state before (and generally the end-user >>is not >> aware of the internal state of the infrastructure). >+1. Say we have a new API 'ProvisionNetwork' to provision a network that >has been created by the user. Since the user is not aware of the internal >state of a network it would be confusing for the user to understand the >difference b/w the 2 API's, CreateNetwork and ProvisionNetwork. Correct (although it would probably be an additional flag to CreateNetwork). There's a couple of other options here: A. Make this admin only API. This would be a new API (CreateNetworkForUser) so that it will not confuse end-users B. An additional flag on the network offering. The offering already hides infrastructure-specific stuff like use vlans vs overlays, so it would not be unnatural. However, how does the end-user know to use this offering? > >> Is it OK to make this behavior >> zone-wide, I.e., on every guest network? >But this would mean having all networks (in the zone which has this >behavior enabled) in an implemented state, even if a network has no >physical device or VM deployed in it. This is changing the default CS >behavior of not having resources allocated to a network if the network >doesn't require it. Is that acceptable ? It might be, depending on the operator. Manan? >
