Re: [PROPOSAL] More Flexible Security Group Implementation

2014-03-25 Thread Jeff Hair
ev@cloudstack.apache.org>> > Date: Monday, March 24, 2014 at 9:12 AM > To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>" < > dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>> > Subject: [PROPOSAL] More Flexible Security Group Implementatio

Re: [PROPOSAL] More Flexible Security Group Implementation

2014-03-24 Thread Chiradeep Vittal
March 24, 2014 at 9:12 AM To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>" mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>> Subject: [PROPOSAL] More Flexible Security Group Implementation Hi, Currently the security group manager has a very specific implementation that requ

[PROPOSAL] More Flexible Security Group Implementation

2014-03-24 Thread Jeff Hair
Hi, Currently the security group manager has a very specific implementation that requires an agent running on the other end. This works for KVM but not for other hypervisors such as VMware. The validation mechanisms are also very tightly coupled to the large methods in the NetworkManager and UserV