Re: Multiple Physical Networks in Basic Networking (KVM)

Ivan – not sure how you deal with per-network VM bandwidth (or what your use case is) so probably worth testing in the lab. Wido – agree, I don’t see why our current “basic zone” can’t be deprecated in the long run for “advanced zone with security groups” since they serve the same purpose and t

Re: Multiple Physical Networks in Basic Networking (KVM)

On 06/08/2018 03:32 PM, Dag Sonstebo wrote: > Hi Ivan, > > Not quite – “advanced zone with security group” allows you to have multiple > “basic” type networks isolated within their own VLANs and with security > groups isolation between VMs / accounts. The VR only does DNS/DHCP, not > GW/NAT.

Re: Multiple Physical Networks in Basic Networking (KVM)

Dag, I'll try that, but how to implement per-network vm bandwidth is still open question? How it could be tackled? пт, 8 июн. 2018 г., 15:32 Dag Sonstebo : > Hi Ivan, > > Not quite – “advanced zone with security group” allows you to have > multiple “basic” type networks isolated within their own

Re: Multiple Physical Networks in Basic Networking (KVM)

Hi Ivan, Not quite – “advanced zone with security group” allows you to have multiple “basic” type networks isolated within their own VLANs and with security groups isolation between VMs / accounts. The VR only does DNS/DHCP, not GW/NAT. Regards, Dag Sonstebo Cloud Architect ShapeBlue On 08/06/

Re: Multiple Physical Networks in Basic Networking (KVM)

Hi, Dag. Not exactly. Advanced zone uses VR as a GW with SNAT/DNAT which is not quite good for public cloud in my case. Despite that it really solves the problem. But I would like to have it as simple as possible, without VR as a GW and xNAT. пт, 8 июн. 2018 г., 15:21 Dag Sonstebo : > Wido / Ivan

Re: Multiple Physical Networks in Basic Networking (KVM)

Wido / Ivan – I’m probably missing something – but is the feature you are looking for not the same functionality we currently have in “advanced zones with security groups”? Regards, Dag Sonstebo Cloud Architect ShapeBlue On 08/06/2018, 14:14, "Ivan Kudryavtsev" wrote: Hi Wido, I also very

Re: Multiple Physical Networks in Basic Networking (KVM)

Hi Wido, I also very interested in similar deployment, especially combined with the capability of setting different network bandwidth for different networks, like 10.0.0.0/8 intra dc with 1g bandwidth per vm and white ipv4/ipv6 with regular bandwidth management. But it seem it takes very big redesi

Multiple Physical Networks in Basic Networking (KVM)

Hi, I am looking into supporting multiple Physical Networks inside onze Basic Networking zone. First: The reason we use Basic Networking is the simplicity and the fact that our (Juniper) routers can do the routing and not the VR. ALL our VMs have external IPv4/IPv6 addresses and we do not use NA

Re: {ANNOUNCE] 4.11.1 RC2 cut

Daan and Rohit Come to think about it - you are correct, I looked through and noticed my install does cloudstack-* against 4.11 repo and Marvin being in the repo - is being installed. I will change my process, thanks for the update -ilya On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 1:08 AM Rohit Yadav wrote: > Hi

Re: {ANNOUNCE] 4.11.1 RC2 cut

Hi Ilya, The cloudstack-marvin package is not needed to be installed for normal CloudStack setup/use, nor it is added as a dependency on any of the other production packages such as cloudstack-management, cloudstack-agent, cloudstack-common, cloudstack-usage. We created these additional pack

Re: {ANNOUNCE] 4.11.1 RC2 cut

Ilya, are you installing cloudstack-marvin-4.11.1.0-rc1.el7.centos.x86_64 or does it come in as a dependency itself? I would expect those other packages as dependencies of cloudstack-marvin, and you'd have to add those in your local repo. Marvin should not be installed as a dependency of anything.