Re: Firewall rule question

2013-05-15 Thread Ahmad Emneina
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:25 PM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Firewall rule question > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 06:43:44AM +, Koushik Das wrote: > > > Prasanna, > > > > > > Interesting point. On one ha

RE: Firewall rule question

2013-05-15 Thread Koushik Das
> -Original Message- > From: Prasanna Santhanam [mailto:t...@apache.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:25 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: Firewall rule question > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 06:43:44AM +, Koushik Das wrote: > > Pr

Re: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Prasanna Santhanam
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 06:43:44AM +, Koushik Das wrote: > Prasanna, > > Interesting point. On one hand there is consistency and on the other > hand flexibility. Not sure if the framework should be restrictive or > as flexible as possible but I personally like the latter option. Sorry, don't

RE: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Koushik Das
he.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:54 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: Firewall rule question > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 05:54:36AM +, Koushik Das wrote: > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: williamste

Re: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Prasanna Santhanam
stack.apache.org; aemne...@gmail.com > > Subject: Re: Firewall rule question > > > > Ya, I am not sure. I am working off a master branch from about 2-3 weeks > > ago. I was kind of expecting it to error and it didn't, so it was not > > clear how > > that c

RE: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Koushik Das
> -Original Message- > From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On > Behalf Of Will Stevens > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:19 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; aemne...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: Firewall rule question > > Ya, I am not

RE: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Koushik Das
> -Original Message- > From: Jayapal Reddy Uradi [mailto:jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:29 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; aemne...@gmail.com > Subject: RE: Firewall rule question > > For the createFirewallRule and createEgress

Re: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Ahmad Emneina
lowed. > > Thanks, > Jayapal > > > -Original Message- > > From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On > > Behalf Of Will Stevens > > Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013 12:19 AM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; aemne...@gmail.com &g

RE: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Jayapal Reddy Uradi
lowed. Thanks, Jayapal > -Original Message- > From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On > Behalf Of Will Stevens > Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013 12:19 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; aemne...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: Firewall rule question >

Re: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Will Stevens
Ya, I am not sure. I am working off a master branch from about 2-3 weeks ago. I was kind of expecting it to error and it didn't, so it was not clear how that case would behave. I am currently developing an integration with the Palo Alto firewall and they don't support specifying a protocol like

Re: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Ahmad Emneina
I'm hoping thats not the default behavior, and nothing happens on the firewall. I guess the fact that empty values entered returns success is a bug? On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Will Stevens wrote: > This applies to both Egress firewall rules as well as IP specific firewall > rules. > > If

Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Will Stevens
This applies to both Egress firewall rules as well as IP specific firewall rules. If you specify TCP but do not specify any port details, it saves fine. I am wondering what this config implies. Does this mean that all TCP traffic is allowed? Thanks, Will