For the createFirewallRule and createEgressFirewallRule APIs the port 
parameters are optional.
If you don't specify the port range for the prototocol (TCP) it allows all the 
tcp traffic.

Ingress:
1.  First firewall rules filters traffic  then PF/Static NAT will NAT to the 
specific VM.
If you specify tcp with out ports all tcp traffic on IP is allowed then 
PF/Static NAT  rule (PF ports) decides to which 
VM the traffic should be NATed.

Egress:
Traffic from guest network to public network is filtered by egress.
If you specify the tcp with out ports all egress tcp traffic is allowed.

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
> 
> 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 TCP
> without any port information.  I still have to finalize the logic associated 
> with
> that edge case, so I wanted to understand what the expected behaviour was
> from that config.
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Ahmad Emneina <aemne...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > 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 <wstev...@cloudops.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> >

Reply via email to