+1 I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI though. So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
We all can help you with the UI. It is a little complicated at the beginning because it is a JavaScript that generates HTML code. However, it is doable. On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com > wrote: > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to bump > CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0? > > > On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > >> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though I myself > >> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a simple > start > >> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard for > creating > >> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and userdata, > great. > > > > That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using VLAN > > isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's basically > > what Basic Networking does. > > > > It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM). > > > > If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced Networking > > you get exactly the same result. > > > >> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by throwing at > as > >> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1: > > > > I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI though. > > So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing. > > > > Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at the right > > location and you're done. > > > > Wido > > > >> > >>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently > >>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a > >>> shared network. > >>> > >>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking > >>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor > >>> does the Security Grouping. > >>> > >>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking. > >>> > >>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't > >>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's > >>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in > >>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be > >>> difficult. > >>> > >>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for > ever > >>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the > >>> creation of new Basic Networking zones. > >>> > >>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the > >>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to > test. > >>> > >>> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking > >>> direction. > >>> > >>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and > >>> that's progressing very good as well. > >>> > >>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the > >>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping > >>> it alive for existing users? > >>> > >>> Wido > >>> > >> > >> > >> > -- Rafael Weingärtner
