My assumption is that EIP for VPC should work exactly the same as EIP for Isolated Networks since EIP is like another Public IP except that it can be moved across zones. Also, we do support static NAT in VPC as well as Isolated. So, my thinking is that it might just work with minimal effort.
Regards, Manan Shah On 3/21/13 8:47 PM, "Murali Reddy" <murali.re...@citrix.com> wrote: >On 21/03/13 11:21 PM, "Manan Shah" <manan.s...@citrix.com> wrote: > >>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. > >May be, I have not thought through or explored AWS VPC EIP semantics. Can >you please explore and see the support for isolated network can work for >VPC as well semantically? We can raise feature request for next release. > >> >>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 >>> >> >> > >
