The P in VPN stands for Private. I am not sure I understand what sharing VPN's across tenants would actually mean. It's an interesting concept, but there's not enough details that would justify the extra layer of complexity. As for VPNaaS I think there are a few existing unaddressed needs that make this particular request not worth pursuing right now. We'll have to reassess later on.
** Changed in: neutron Status: Confirmed => Won't Fix ** Changed in: neutron Assignee: zhaobo (zhaobo6) => (unassigned) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Yahoo! Engineering Team, which is subscribed to neutron. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1524264 Title: [RFE] Role-based access control for VPNaaS resources Status in neutron: Won't Fix Bug description: [Application scene] Tenant A have a vpn, and A doesn't want to share own vpn to those A doesn't believe or no payment, so tenant A may be the vpn supplier. Tenant B want to use the vpn through A shared to B. Generally, one share to specified ones to use owned vpn is an normal thing. [Proposal] Now vpn didn't contain the 'shared' field, so we should extend it and fulfill the function of share to specified tenants based on rbac policies. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1524264/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yahoo-eng-team Post to : yahoo-eng-team@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yahoo-eng-team More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp