I can think of a use case where the user wants static Ips, but with
range/overlap/reuse checks.

On 7/11/13 4:41 PM, "Murali Reddy" <murali.re...@citrix.com> wrote:

>On 11/07/13 2:33 PM, "Prasanna Santhanam" <t...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 12:27:28PM +0530, Girish Shilamkar wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> In order to create shared network StartIp/endIp/gateway/netmask are
>>> required. I am looking at an old test case which creates shared
>>> network without IP range
>>> and deploys vm in it. It of course fails as IP range is required
>>> while creating shared network.
>>
>>> Has anything related to shared network changed in recent times or
>>> the test case is just invalid ?
>>
>>The steps of the test are as follows. If anyone has tested this
>>scenario and/or know how this works, your input would help resolve the
>>failure in automated tests:
>
>I am not aware of the history (2.2.x releases) but current behaviour is
>you can not create a network without IP range being specified. For now
>mark this test as invalid or make expected behaviour is to fail network
>creation.
>
>Having said that, we can create network offering and network without any
>network services (including DHCP, DNS). Without IPAM/DNS/DHCP services, IP
>range for the network has no relevance to CloudStack. So, in my opinion
>current behaviour is not right when network offering has no services,
>unless there is a reason for such enforcement. Opened CLOUDSTACK-3474 for
>further investigation.
> 
>>
>>If not, I'll remove this test as invalid.
>>
>># 1. create a shared network using shared network offering but do not
>>specify startIp/endIp arguments
>># 2. create an account
>># 3. deploy a VM in this account using the above network
>>
>># Validate the following
>># 1. listNetworks should return the created network
>># 2. listAccounts to return the created account
>># 3. VM deployment should succeed and NIC is in networks address space
>># 4. delete the account
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Prasanna.,
>>
>>------------------------
>>Powered by BigRock.com
>>
>>
>
>

Reply via email to