I am curious as to which vim25.jar you included..the one from the 4.1 or 5.1 SDK?
> Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 18:31:02 -0500 > From: john.skin...@appcore.com > To: users@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: VMware DomainRouter > > I did build from source, and did include the vim25.jar. I have 2 interfaces > that are bonded for all networks with 2 standard vSwitches. I have vSwitch0 > for management and storage, and vSwitch2 for public and guest. > > John Skinner > Senior Systems Administrator | Appcore - the business of cloud computing® > > Office +1.800.735.7104 > Direct +1.515.612.7783 | Mobile +1.515.745.0248 > john.skin...@appcore.com | www.appcore.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > The information in this message is intended for the named recipients only. It > may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise > protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of > any action in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, do not print it or > disseminate it or its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by > return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately thereafter. Thank you. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ilya Musayev" <imusa...@webmd.net> > To: users@cloudstack.apache.org > Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2013 5:22:30 PM > Subject: RE: VMware DomainRouter > > Is your eth1 - guest network and eth2 - mgmt. network? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Skinner [mailto:john.skin...@appcore.com] > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 6:16 PM > > To: users@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: VMware DomainRouter > > > > Hello list, > > > > I just setup a CloudStack 4.1 environment with vSphere 5.1. Everything > > seems to be working ok for the most part. However, I have noticed that my > > domain routers are getting created with a management IP address for the > > control network instead of a control network IP address (the link local IP > > addresses). Is this expected behavior? > >
