Just want to mention that if certificates are managed, this would be fairly simple to add to VPC routers as well. The haproxy loadbalancer config would just need to be passed the cert and a slightly different config. So hopefully it has been implemented in such a way that it's easy to reuse for VPC, the certs aren't tied to netscaler objects or something like that.
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Syed Ahmed <sah...@cloudops.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Many thanks to Darren and Murali for reviewing my code. I feel that the code > is in a good condition to be merged into the master. I see that the code > freeze is at the end of this week. Is it possible for my patch to be merged > by then? Is it a hard deadline? > > Thanks, > -Syed > > > On Mon 04 Nov 2013 11:45:15 AM EST, Syed Ahmed wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> I would like to get this code into 4.3. Is it possible for this to be >> reviewed? Is there anything needed from my side? I would be glad to >> provide more information. >> >> Thanks, >> -Syed >> >> On Wed 30 Oct 2013 03:25:12 PM EDT, Syed Ahmed wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I have the patch for adding SSL termination support at >>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/14976/ . It would be great if this can be >>> reviewed. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Syed >>> >>> On 13-10-15 03:01 AM, Murali Reddy wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11/10/13 9:31 PM, "Syed Ahmed" <sah...@cloudops.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for your valuable feedback Murali. Here are my comments. >>>>> >>>>>> IMO, >>>>>> its better we introduce new api's say >>>>>> registerCertifcateToLoadbalancer/deregisterCertifcateToLoadbalancer >>>>>> than >>>>>> force fit existing API's for associate/dis-associate certificates. >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I was going to do it this way. But I am not sure how good >>>>> of an idea it is to add a new api just for this feature as I can see >>>>> assignToLoadbalancer is semantically similar. But if everyone agrees I >>>>> have no problem with it. >>>> >>>> CloudStack already has distinct API's for each of the LB >>>> sub-functionality >>>> (health check, stickiness etc) [1]. We are not adding any redundant >>>> API, >>>> so resulting API are much cleaner just managing SSL termination for >>>> a LB >>>> rule. >>>> >>>>>> On second thought may be an CloudStack usage event on assigning >>>>>> certificate seems good enough to me. >>>>> >>>>> So what I got from your earlier post was that when adding a network >>>>> offering the provider can choose to enable SSL Termination or not >>>>> as it >>>>> is a value added service. I was thinking of adding "SSL termination" >>>>> under supportedservices for the createNetworkOffering API call. And >>>>> when someone calls the API to assign a cert to LB we can check if this >>>>> network offering has SSL termination enabled. Does this make sense? >>>> >>>> So there is notion of network service and network service capability >>>> [2]. >>>> I would attribute 'SSL termination' as capability of LB service. >>>> createNetworkOffering API take a capability list. It does make sense to >>>> check if the network offering has SSL termination enabled when API to >>>> assign a cert to LB is called. Also note that, 'Network Elements' >>>> declare >>>> their capabilities for the supported services. So it can verified that >>>> service provider for LB actually supports 'SSL termination' capability >>>> while creating network offering. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Also when you say usage event, what does this imply? I am sorry I am >>>>> not familiar with that term. Can you please elaborate. >>>> >>>> Its an event generated and persisted in the DB for every resource >>>> consumption and release. These events are used for billing etc. Please >>>> check publishUsageEvent calls in the code. >>>> >>>> [1] http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/api/apidocs-4.2/TOC_User.html >>>> [2] api/src/com/cloud/network/Network.java >>>> >>> >> >> > >
