On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 06:43:44AM +0000, Koushik Das wrote: > Prasanna, > > Interesting point. On one hand there is consistency and on the other > hand flexibility. Not sure if the framework should be restrictive or > as flexible as possible but I personally like the latter option.
Sorry, don't mean to hijack this thread: But I'm not sure of the flexibility you speak of, is it given to the tenant? If I was a tenant using a network offering using the VR and had programmed my FW rules accordingly. On upgrading my network offering to say, a PaloAlto FW, if all my instances suddenly become unreachable, I don't see that as favourable behaviour. -- Prasanna., ------------------------ Powered by BigRock.com
