ced Shared mode?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Jessica Tomechak > wrote:
>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Kelceydamage@bbits [mailto:kel...@bbits.ca]
>>> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 12:18 P
2013 at 8:34 AM, Jessica Tomechak wrote:
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Kelceydamage@bbits [mailto:kel...@bbits.ca]
> > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 12:18 PM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Networking Question
> >
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kelceydamage@bbits [mailto:kel...@bbits.ca]
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 12:18 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Networking Question
>
> Hi Mike, you can drop me an email directly if you want to talk abo
Message-
From: Mike Tutkowski [mailto:mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com]
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 3:22 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Networking Question
Hi,
Thanks for the reply!
Yeah, I'd be interested in learning more about networking in CS. Whatever
kind of
Hi,
Thanks for the reply!
Yeah, I'd be interested in learning more about networking in CS. Whatever
kind of info you think might be relevant.
Thanks!
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Kelceydamage@bbits wrote:
> Hi Mike, you can drop me an email directly if you want to talk about
> advanced n
Hi Mike, you can drop me an email directly if you want to talk about advanced
networking features.
The simple answer is that each isolated(default)NAT network created grabs a
VLAN from the guest VLAN pool.
You can have many VM under a domain sharing an isolated network.
Sent from my iPhone
On
> -Original Message-
> From: mpat...@inforelay.com [mailto:mpat...@inforelay.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 6:05 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Networking question
>
> > In basic mode, security groups are used for segregat
> In basic mode, security groups are used for segregation but VMs are only
> allowed one network to live in. Why? Why couldn't an instance in basic
> mode belong to multiple networks?
No good reason. My comment about the ready availability of good-enough
hardware was not meant to imply that I su
> Switches are dirt cheap. Even if you do have the world's sorriest excuse
> of switching technology.
I think also this becomes a matter of principle in the sense that you can
easily to this _without_ CloudStack and vanilla Xen/XCP/HV of choice. So why
does installing CS impose a limit on wha
> Switches are dirt cheap. Even if you do have the world's sorriest excuse
> of switching technology.
I think really this is more a matter of principle at this point than a matter
of budget. Scaling limitations of VLANs aside (which is what SDN is there as
an option to resolve), it's a questi
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Matthew Patton wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:26:02 -0400, Outback Dingo
> wrote:
>
>
>> we dont have VLAN capable switches
>
>
> I rather doubt that. Every tom dick and harry switch manufacturer of even
> the cheapest PoS I've run across knows what to do with VLA
On Aug 9, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Matthew Patton wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:26:02 -0400, Outback Dingo
> wrote:
>
>
>> we dont have VLAN capable switches
>
> I rather doubt that. Every tom dick and harry switch manufacturer of even the
> cheapest PoS I've run across knows what to do with VLA
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:26:02 -0400, Outback Dingo
wrote:
we dont have VLAN capable switches
I rather doubt that. Every tom dick and harry switch manufacturer of even
the cheapest PoS I've run across knows what to do with VLAN tags. What you
can't do, is control at the port level which
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Patton wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 03:09:30 -0400, Hugo Trippaers
> wrote:
>
>> I think I have the clear picture now. I think there is a valid use case
>> for having the option to create 'internal' networks (networks that have no
>> outside connectivity s
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 03:09:30 -0400, Hugo Trippaers
wrote:
I think I have the clear picture now. I think there is a valid use case
for having the option to create 'internal' networks (networks that have
no outside connectivity so no SourceNat service)
You "think"? Do people here not have
I and hidden if we are creating an isolated network with
>source NAT enabled ?
Yes, we should make them mandatory in the UI.
>
>Thanks,
>Pranav
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Alena Prokharchyk [mailto:alena.prokharc...@citrix.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2
isolated network with source
>NAT enabled ?
Yes, we should make them mandatory in the UI.
>
>Thanks,
>Pranav
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Alena Prokharchyk [mailto:alena.prokharc...@citrix.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:44 PM
>To: cloudstack-dev@i
August 08, 2012 10:44 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Networking question
On 8/7/12 11:54 PM, "Hugo Trippaers" wrote:
>Hey Alena,
>
>Why would we want to explicitly add a vlan for "isolated" networks
>without source nat service? The guest IP a
-Original Message-
>From: Alena Prokharchyk [mailto:alena.prokharc...@citrix.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 10:51 PM
>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Networking question
>
>Hugo,
>
>Sorry, completely missed this scenario. When I referred
12 10:51 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Networking question
Hugo,
Sorry, completely missed this scenario. When I referred to ip allocation in
Isolated network in my email, I meant Isolated network with Source Nat service.
IP allocation for Isolated network with no source Nat fall
Hugo,
Sorry, completely missed this scenario. When I referred to ip allocation
in Isolated network in my email, I meant Isolated network with Source Nat
service.
IP allocation for Isolated network with no source Nat falls under the same
rules Shared network follows. Both these networks used to be
Hey Alena,
Thanks for the explanation, but in my case the network that I'm creating is an
isolated network without a SourceNat offering.
So it should not need have an ip allocated from the public ip table as it is
isolated. It is also not a VLAN but a 'direct' network as it is provisioned by
t
On 8/7/12 6:14 AM, "Hugo Trippaers" wrote:
>Heya,
>
>I'm trying to get my head around something and would welcome some
>feedback.
>
>The use case I'm currently working with is related to internal networks.
>I have serveral use cases that call for internal networks that have no
>connection to the
;
>-Original Message-
>From: Deepak Garg [mailto:deepak.g...@citrix.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:35 PM
>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: RE: Networking question
>
>
>Thanks, but in the pdf of System VMs, VR is not shown in the management
&g
s and issues commands that
way.
-Original Message-
From: Deepak Garg [mailto:deepak.g...@citrix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:35 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Networking question
Thanks, but in the pdf of System VMs, VR is not shown in the management
networ
: 'cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org'
Subject: RE: Networking question
Sort of like this?
http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/COMM/CloudStack+Example+Configurations
Specifically the "Cloudstack System VMs" document(s).
-Original Message-
From: Deepak Garg [mailto:deepak.g.
Sort of like this?
http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/COMM/CloudStack+Example+Configurations
Specifically the "Cloudstack System VMs" document(s).
-Original Message-
From: Deepak Garg [mailto:deepak.g...@citrix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 12:56 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.ap
27 matches
Mail list logo
