On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 02:19:24PM +0000, Murali Reddy wrote: > > Swamy, > > As mentioned in my merge request [1], I have generalised this feature and > tried to not enforce AWS EIP semantics. Please see the updated FS [2] > > [1] http://s.apache.org/xjy > [2] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/portable+public+IP > > Let me know if you need further clarification.
Do you want the older page to be deleted? Is it still relevant? Perhaps we should move it to an abandoned designs parent page? > > Thanks, > Murali > > On 15/05/13 10:51 PM, "Venkata SwamyBabu Budumuru" > <venkataswamybabu.budum...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >I didn't find the old mail thread about this FS. Hence posting my review > >comments in a new thread. > > > >I have few queries/ comments after reviewing the FS [1] > > > >[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/eip-enhancements.html > >[2] Prior discussion thread : http://sy.pe/6bNG > > > > > >1. Are we providing any flexibility for admin to impose no. of EIPs an > >account can use? > >2. As per the Spec, when an instance has a public ip with > >is_system=false, then we don't let user asosciateEIP. I feel, it would be > >better if allow the user to associate EIP in this case? > >3. When "Associate PublicIP" is false then are going to keep all the > >semantics to stand the same except the fact that vm deployment by default > >not getting the public ip? > >4. Do allow CS to reprogram NAT rules on the provider in case of n/w > >restarts? > >5. Under Scope, point 4 says that we only support static NAT on region > >level EIP. Is this true for advanced zones as well? we cannot we support > >other services like PF / LB etc..,? > >6. Can you confirm that we are supporting this for Shared n/ws in > >advanced zone? > >7. I see in the spec that "createElasticIpRange" API not having any VLAN > >id. Are we supporting region level IP CIDR with both tagged and untagged? > >multiple subnets in the same VLAN and different VLANs etc.., > >8. When there is an ElasticIp associated with instance, Does the current > >implementation release this IP and gives it back to account when VM got > >to stopped state? if yes, does this mean user has to associateEIP every > >time user starts instance? > > > > > >Thanks, > >SWAMY > > > > > > >
