Adding Nicolas to the CC line to be sure that he sees Animesh's offer. Animesh - Nicolas is in the EU, so I'd expect a reply tomorrow?
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 01:01:59PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: nicolas.lamira...@orange.com [mailto:nicolas.lamira...@orange.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30 AM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2 > > > > Hi > > We didn't so much choose the Security Groups feature as we found that the > > VLAN option, which is the only other option available in 2.2.13, wouldn't > > let > > us achieve what we had in mind in terms of Network Architecture. > > This was more of a default choice. > > > > Our need was/is to : > > - use external gateways (don't use Virtual Routers as gateways) > > - use external firewalls > > - have 2 or 3 VLANs, depending on customers' needs, for each "customer > > platform". A "customer platform" in our own terminology is mapped to a > > Domain and an Account in the CS terminology. Those VLAN are affected > > externally by our own tool which call CloudStack and set the appropriate > > VLANs in the Networks attached to a domain. > > - not have overlapping subnets between customers. We split our subnet > > between customers, each has a different one > > > > And we couldn't have that if we had chosen in our Zone configuration an > > Advanced Network with VLAN instead of Security Groups. But we don't use > > the Security Groups feature itself. > > > > Regarding these needs what do you think is the best way for us to upgrade > > from 2.2.13 to 4.1 and not break existing customers ? > [Animesh>] I am still not following the use-case completely, should we do a > go to meeting ? Alena and I can join. Let me know what time works best for > you.
