Slight correction: the templates are exactly the same. No difference. Scripts may be different due to hot plug
On 8/23/13 1:32 PM, "Alena Prokharchyk" <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >Also note that VPC VR uses different template and diff script sets from >regular Isolated network's VR. Before the migration, we have to: > >1) Merge code base for VR and VPC VR. Use the same template for both. >2) As a part of the Java code merge: > > * The current VPC VR uses hot plug nic mechanism originally it >starts up with just 1 Control Nic, and (n) Public Nics + (n) Guest nics >are being plugged/unplugged on demand when Public IP address is >acquired from the new Vlan, or when new Guest network is implemented in >the VPC. This logic is handled by Java code. > * Regular VR in Isolated network always starts up with pre-defined >set of nics Control, Public and Guest. There can be only one situation >when new Nic is added to the VR when new public IP address is acquired >from the Vlan diff from the Source nat IP vlan. In this case we do plug >the nic on the VR, but this logic is handled by the VR scripts. WE don't >even create a nic entry in the DB for this new Nic. > * After the merge, VR in regular Isolated network should also >implement plug/unplug logic. > >3) Add the DB upgrade for existing customers (including template upgrade >for existing Vrs) > >There more to do as a part of this fix, listed the above off the top of >my head. > >-alena. > >From: Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com<mailto:shadow...@gmail.com>> >Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>" ><dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>> >Date: Friday, August 23, 2013 12:30 PM >To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>" ><dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>> >Cc: "jeffrey.mcgov...@sungard.com<mailto:jeffrey.mcgov...@sungard.com>" ><jeffrey.mcgov...@sungard.com<mailto:jeffrey.mcgov...@sungard.com>> >Subject: Re: VPG only in VPC VRs? > >I agree with Chiradeep, but it brings up a point that in some future >release we probably need to convert/migrate existing VR/isolated >network combos into VPCs so we can deprecate them entirely, as well as >migrate the applicable api calls into creating the functionally >equivalent VPCs... or something like that. > >I think VPC is probably also lacking in a few features yet, so they're >not quite a replacement at the moment. Remote access VPN for example. > >On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Chiradeep Vittal ><chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com<mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com>> wrote: >Are you asking why VR for isolated networks does not have this feature? >I feel that isolated networks are legacy and whatever you want to do with >isolated networks you should be able to do with a VPC in a single tier. > > >On 8/23/13 11:19 AM, "Chip Childers" ><chip.child...@sungard.com<mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com>> wrote: > >Can someone explain the history / reasoning around why VPG's are only >available for VPC VRs? > >And while we're at it... how about the same question around >Site-to-site VPN's (and client VPN's in reverse)? > >Thanks! > >-chip > >
