>
>This assumes that there is a common pool of IP addresses available -
>which assumes things like BGP are in place and routing packets between
>multiple datacenters/providers and that you are interacting with BGP
>properly.
>
>I'll be frank and say that the complexity and interaction with systems
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Murali Reddy wrote:
> I would like to propose enhancing current EIP functionality (currently
> available in basic zone). I have made a case for this feature earlier [2] and
> captured requirements in the feature bug [2]. This proposal would like to
> introduce f
Thanks Murali for the FS. Below are some questions/comments.
1. Is there a reason why we wouldn't support this feature for VPC?
2. Your FS talks about supporting EIP for Shared Networks as well. Are you
going to support that? If so, are you going to support it only when NS is
enabled as a LB servi
On 19/03/13 4:08 AM, "Chiradeep Vittal"
wrote:
>Thanks for this. I'd like to note that there is no evidence that AWS
>maintains a separate pool of "Elastic Public IP" and "Ephemeral Public
>IP". If we drop this phantom construct, then the feature is greatly
>simplified
> - there are not 2 workflo
Thanks for this. I'd like to note that there is no evidence that AWS
maintains a separate pool of "Elastic Public IP" and "Ephemeral Public
IP". If we drop this phantom construct, then the feature is greatly
simplified
- there are not 2 workflows to acquire a persistent public ip
- there are no a
I would like to propose enhancing current EIP functionality (currently
available in basic zone). I have made a case for this feature earlier [2] and
captured requirements in the feature bug [2]. This proposal would like to
introduce following functionality.
1. EIP service with in 'advanced'
