Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/#review79002 --- Thank you for submitting your CloudStack contribution through review

Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC

> On March 6, 2014, 10:09 a.m., daan Hoogland wrote: > > Are you contemplating redundant routing on a per network basis? It would > > seem to me that the router, hence the whole vpc with all it networks is > > redundant or not. > > Karl Harris wrote: > The description below is what my init

Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC

Daan, Much clearer response, Thanks. Be Well. Karl On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > H Karl, it doesn't appear so to me. My point was that keepalive should > run over any interface that needs to be guarded. This menas all the > guestnetworks, the optional private gatewa

Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC

H Karl, it doesn't appear so to me. My point was that keepalive should run over any interface that needs to be guarded. This menas all the guestnetworks, the optional private gateway network and the management and possibly even the public interface. maybe I was a little short on words describing t

Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC

Daan, I appears your response was truncated. Karl On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > One answer inline... > > mobile bilingual spell checker used > > Op 24 apr. 2014 16:54 schreef "Karl Harris" : > > > A related question is should the vrr > > protocol

Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC

One answer inline... mobile bilingual spell checker used Op 24 apr. 2014 16:54 schreef "Karl Harris" : > A related question is should the vrr > protocol > used > by Keepalived be passed on the Cloud

Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC

Using the Cloudstack definition of Network Serviceas a foundation my question is: Should the VPC Virtual Redundant Router be considered a Network Service? I'm conflicted. The user can turn on redundancy however the redundant

Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC

Sounds like a single guru should do the job. Also I would think of some offerings that contain affinity so that the guru has a guideline as to where to deploy the pair of routers. For a certain type of network design a admin may already know where the routers should be deployed and in that case it

Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC

The functional spec for Redundant Virtual Router for VPC's states: Deployment for RvR - Mgmt server would try to deploy two VR in the physical devices as far apart as possible. It would try different pod, different cluster, different storage, different host first, until there is none of a

Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC

> On March 6, 2014, 10:09 a.m., daan Hoogland wrote: > > Are you contemplating redundant routing on a per network basis? It would > > seem to me that the router, hence the whole vpc with all it networks is > > redundant or not. The description below is what my initial code is working toward:

Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC

Karl, thanks. This is very clear and I was missing something entirely. I misled myself by interpreting CRUD as db action exclusively. You have cleared my mind and make a lot of sense. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Karl Harris wrote: > The description below is what my initial code is working tow

Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC

The description below is what my initial code is working toward: Turn on VPC redundancy and allow user to do CRUD to the networks just as it is now.( Create guest networks:NICS, etc; Read guest networks:NICS,etc; Update guest networks:NICS,etc; Delete guest networks:NICS,etc) Because redundancy

Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC

Not very much, unless i am missing something. The redundancy can not be enabled on a per network basis as the router needs to be in the air twice anyway. I would not like to save data that has no use. What CRUD are you thinking of? Or are you maybe putting some effort into keeping VPC and standalon

Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC

Redundancy will be on a vpc basis. I'm attempting to add CRUD functionality on a network basis. Does this make sense? On Thursday, March 6, 2014, daan Hoogland wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: >

Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/#review36352 --- Are you contemplating redundant routing on a per network basis? It w

Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/ --- Review request for cloudstack. Repository: cloudstack-git Description ---