Thanks Murali for your prompt response. For the VPC part, can you explain what is the difference between supporting on Isolated Network and supporting on VPC? I would assume they should be very similar. May be I am mistaken here.
Regards, Manan Shah On 3/20/13 11:52 PM, "Murali Reddy" <murali.re...@citrix.com> wrote: >On 21/03/13 3:10 AM, "Manan Shah" <manan.s...@citrix.com> wrote: > >>Thanks Murali for the FS. Below are some questions/comments. >> >>1. Is there a reason why we wouldn't support this feature for VPC? > >Manan, thanks for reviewing. There is no particular reason, VPC would need >little different semantics we need to think through. Its just that I do >not have bandwidth to get the support in VPC as well for 4.2. I would >rather get the EIP support in 'advanced zone' and across regions baked up >properly for 4.2. > >>2. Your FS talks about supporting EIP for Shared Networks as well. Are >>you >>going to support that? If so, are you going to support it only when NS is >>enabled as a LB service provider? > >Yes, We already support NetScaler as EIP & ELB service provider in basic >zone 'shared network'. So I would imagine this would be easy extension. > >>3. On Stopping a VM in basic zone today, CS does not detach the EIP from >>the VM. I believe the functionality should be consistent with the current >>support as well as consistent across Basic and Advanced Zones >>4. In Advanced Zone Network with EIP service, I am assuming you will not >>allocate a Public IP for every guest VM. Your FS talks about Advanced >>Zone >>behaving exactly like Basic Zone. That's why I am asking. >>5. Currently, we support EIP in Basic Zone. For basic zone users, it >>might >>get confusing that there are two ways to do EIP in Basic Zone. > >Ok, I missed this point. I will keep the backward compatibility and keep >the semantics of EIP in advanced zone same with basic zone. I will update >the spec to reflect this. > >Thanks, >Murali >
