Well, the other point is citrix is supporting more nics than seven if using
the CLI.
How does CloudStack speaks to XenServer, via the RPC API or CLI? That would
be interesting because of the exception CloudStack throws if i try to add
more than seven through the gui or api.

2017-08-15 14:34 GMT+02:00 Dag Sonstebo <[email protected]>:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> The mechanism for isolating L2 traffic is at the vSwitch level – there is
> no way to VLAN tag the at the NIC level for a VM in VMware. Your only other
> option is therefore to VLAN tag at the guest OS level which adds security
> issues + overhead, etc.
>
> Regards,
> Dag Sonstebo
> Cloud Architect
> ShapeBlue
>
> On 15/08/2017, 13:05, "[email protected]" <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>     Hi Dag,
>
>     thank you for your answer. As far as I know, the end user never has
> direct access to the virtual router. I am not talking about adding a VLAN
> tag at the user VM, only at the VPR, where the limit most likely comes into
> play when creating a number of tiers in a VPC.
>
>     We could do both: normal VMs require one interface per tier/network,
> which makes perfect sense. The router however could use VLAN tags at VM
> level, which could remove the limitation of having a maximum number of
> tiers connected to one VPC. It is only configured by CloudStack, the end
> user does not have access to the VPR.
>
>     Regards
>     Daniel
>
>     Am 15.08.17, 13:27 schrieb "Dag Sonstebo" <[email protected]
> >:
>
>         Hi Daniel,
>
>         In theory that could work – but keep in mind we are working in a
> multi-tenant environment, where guest isolation must be guaranteed, hence
> cannot ever be exposed to normal users. The isolation method must be
> abstracted from the end user VMs – otherwise you would have a potential
> security issue where someone could tag traffic from their VM with  someone
> else’s tag. Doing tagging at VM level would also be a huge overhead.
>         As a result we VLAN tag at the vSwitch or bridge level – which end
> users have no access to – the flipside of the coin being that this requires
> separate NICs for each tier.
>
>         Regards,
>         Dag Sonstebo
>         Cloud Architect
>         ShapeBlue
>
>         On 15/08/2017, 11:07, "[email protected]" <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>             Hi,
>
>             we are hitting the same limitation, except that we can use 10
> NICs on VMware.
>
>             The fact that we also use the Private Gateway functionality
> addes another NIC, besides the management and outside NIC which is present
> as well.
>
>             I wonder that is the reason for one NIC per tier? Why not just
> use one outside NIC, one management NIC and *one* NIC for the tiers, where
> the VLANs (or whatever isolation method is used) is trunked, for example
> just using subinterfaces and dot1Q tags? This would eliminate this limit
> for whatever hypervisor that supports trunk to it’s guests (I know for sure
> about VMWare, not so much about the other hypervisors).
>
>             Regards
>             Daniel
>
>             Am 15.08.17, 10:52 schrieb "Dag Sonstebo" <
> [email protected]>:
>
>                 Hi Dennis,
>
>                 Any tier or network which is accessible and part of a VPC
> requires an interface on the VPC Virtual Router.
>
>                 What you can however do is create separate shared networks
> and connect these as secondary networks to your VMs – these shared networks
> get their own VR.
>
>                 Regards,
>                 Dag Sonstebo
>                 Cloud Architect
>                 ShapeBlue
>
>                 On 15/08/2017, 09:19, "Dennis Meyer" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>                     Hi,
>
>                     im using xenserver as hypervisor so im limited to 7
> nic's / vm, so the
>                     router vm cant handle more than 7 nics which
> corresponds to 7 networks
>                     inside a vpc. I had created some networks for
> different drbd and corosync
>                     stuff, they dont need a gateway, dhcp and a router vm.
> How should a network
>                     offering look like which dont creates a network on the
> routervm but is
>                     accessible by the vpc?
>
>                     Snooops
>
>
>
>                 [email protected]
>                 www.shapeblue.com
>                 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
>                 @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         [email protected]
>         www.shapeblue.com
>         53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
>         @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [email protected]
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to