It's been a long time, honestly, I have to take a long trip down my memory to
remember the circumstance where we had problems.
On 6/11/18, 2:01 AM, "Dag Sonstebo" wrote:
Hi Yiping,
“In the course of last three years, we found many features are NOT
implemented for this deployment
Hi Yiping,
“In the course of last three years, we found many features are NOT implemented
for this deployment mode, or API's not working properly. So be warned!”
>> Since you have some time served on this setup it would be great if you can
>> share those issues, and ideally log Github issues f
We have been using "advanced networking with security groups" on XenServer
clusters (using linux bridge network backend, instead of open vSwitch) for over
three years now in production.. AFAICT, this is not an officially
supported/endorsed deployment scenario.We are a private enterprise
de
On 06/08/2018 03:54 PM, Dag Sonstebo wrote:
> Ivan – not sure how you deal with per-network VM bandwidth (or what your use
> case is) so probably worth testing in the lab.
>
Isn't that done by libvirt in the XML? In Basic Zone at least that
works. It is part of the service offering.
> Wido –
Ivan – not sure how you deal with per-network VM bandwidth (or what your use
case is) so probably worth testing in the lab.
Wido – agree, I don’t see why our current “basic zone” can’t be deprecated in
the long run for “advanced zone with security groups” since they serve the same
purpose and t
On 06/08/2018 03:32 PM, Dag Sonstebo wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
>
> Not quite – “advanced zone with security group” allows you to have multiple
> “basic” type networks isolated within their own VLANs and with security
> groups isolation between VMs / accounts. The VR only does DNS/DHCP, not
> GW/NAT.
Dag, I'll try that, but how to implement per-network vm bandwidth is still
open question? How it could be tackled?
пт, 8 июн. 2018 г., 15:32 Dag Sonstebo :
> Hi Ivan,
>
> Not quite – “advanced zone with security group” allows you to have
> multiple “basic” type networks isolated within their own
Hi Ivan,
Not quite – “advanced zone with security group” allows you to have multiple
“basic” type networks isolated within their own VLANs and with security groups
isolation between VMs / accounts. The VR only does DNS/DHCP, not GW/NAT.
Regards,
Dag Sonstebo
Cloud Architect
ShapeBlue
On 08/06/
Hi, Dag. Not exactly. Advanced zone uses VR as a GW with SNAT/DNAT which is
not quite good for public cloud in my case. Despite that it really solves
the problem. But I would like to have it as simple as possible, without VR
as a GW and xNAT.
пт, 8 июн. 2018 г., 15:21 Dag Sonstebo :
> Wido / Ivan
Wido / Ivan – I’m probably missing something – but is the feature you are
looking for not the same functionality we currently have in “advanced zones
with security groups”?
Regards,
Dag Sonstebo
Cloud Architect
ShapeBlue
On 08/06/2018, 14:14, "Ivan Kudryavtsev" wrote:
Hi Wido, I also very
Hi Wido, I also very interested in similar deployment, especially combined
with the capability of setting different network bandwidth for different
networks, like
10.0.0.0/8 intra dc with 1g bandwidth per vm and white ipv4/ipv6 with
regular bandwidth management. But it seem it takes very big redesi
11 matches
Mail list logo
