Re: Firewall rule question

2013-05-15 Thread Ahmad Emneina
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:25 PM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Firewall rule question > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 06:43:44AM +, Koushik Das wrote: > > > Prasanna, > > > > > > Interesting point. On one ha

RE: Firewall rule question

2013-05-15 Thread Koushik Das
> -Original Message- > From: Prasanna Santhanam [mailto:t...@apache.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:25 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: Firewall rule question > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 06:43:44AM +, Koushik Das wrote: > > Pr

Re: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Prasanna Santhanam
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 06:43:44AM +, Koushik Das wrote: > Prasanna, > > Interesting point. On one hand there is consistency and on the other > hand flexibility. Not sure if the framework should be restrictive or > as flexible as possible but I personally like the latter option. Sorry, don't

RE: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Koushik Das
he.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:54 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: Firewall rule question > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 05:54:36AM +, Koushik Das wrote: > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: williamste

Re: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Prasanna Santhanam
stack.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 c

RE: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Koushik Das
> -Original Message- > From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On > Behalf Of Will Stevens > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:19 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; aemne...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: Firewall rule question > > Ya, I am not

RE: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Koushik Das
> -Original Message- > From: Jayapal Reddy Uradi [mailto:jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:29 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; aemne...@gmail.com > Subject: RE: Firewall rule question > > For the createFirewallRule and createEgress

Re: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Ahmad Emneina
lowed. > > 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 &g

RE: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Jayapal Reddy Uradi
lowed. 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 >

Re: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Will Stevens
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

Re: Firewall rule question

2013-05-14 Thread Ahmad Emneina
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 wrote: > This applies to both Egress firewall rules as well as IP specific firewall > rules. > > If