Author: Jaromil Date: To: devuan developers internal list Subject: Re: [devuan-dev] Status of my action points
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017, KatolaZ wrote:
> The second reason is more fundamental. I had the impression that we
> wanted to have a dmz where to put vms for external services, so that
> all the public IPs could be routed by a VM acting as a
> firewall. However, Centurion_Dan now seems convinced that the physical
> machine should do the routing (and the firewalling).
> I think this is not a good idea, and I am not sure about how this
> plays with ganeti failover procedures. I guess that having two
> identical fw VMs (one on each ganeti node) would be the best option,
> since upon failover we would simply need to route the external IPs to
> the mac of the new master, and everything will be already working. If
> instead we go for managing routing on the physical machine, we need to
> setup all the fw rules on the new master node, which might be a bit of
> a burden.
> Since we are now again blocked on this point, I think we must clarify
> these issues and proceed as soon as possible.
thanks for making this issue more clear
nextime: can you chip into this and let us know how you think is best?
I'd rather keep up with the same ganeti setup we have now.
This message was posted to the following mailing lists: