Could you please elaborate about your temporary solution ? I couldn't get a VM to act as a router that will do the port forwarding for other VMs in a private network. For some reason the VM cannot act as a router. Is it due to neutron networking ?
Best regards, 2013/12/19 Martinx - ジェームズ <thiagocmarti...@gmail.com> > I'm wondering about this too... I think that would be very nice to give > the FWaaS, the ability to manage the NAT table of tenant router. > > This way, there is no need for a "NAT Instance" with a second Floating IP > attached to it plus creepy NAT rules there (far away from the tenant > router). > > Also, the IPv4 tenant router already have "by nature", 1 Floating IP for > it, so, because there is no way to configure the NAT rules of the qrouter, > we need to give at least 2 public IPs (one for the router itself, another > for the "NAT Instance") for each tenant, with in IPv4 world, is a waste. > > Please Stackers! FWaaS needs to be able to handle NAT rules (I think)... > ;-) > > Cheers! > Thiago > > > On 19 December 2013 12:23, Abbass MAROUNI > <abbass.maro...@virtualscale.fr>wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Why is it not possible to do port forwarding with neutron L3 ? >> Any alternative to manually adding to iptables of each virtual router ? >> >> Best regards, >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack >> Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org >> Unsubscribe : >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
