Open Stack

I'm wondering about this too... I think that would be very nice to give the
FWaaS, the ability to manage the NAT table of tenant router.

This way, there is no need for a "NAT Instance" with a second Floating IP
attached to it plus creepy NAT rules there (far away from the tenant
router).

Also, the IPv4 tenant router already have "by nature", 1 Floating IP for
it, so, because there is no way to configure the NAT rules of the qrouter,
we need to give at least 2 public IPs (one for the router itself, another
for the "NAT Instance") for each tenant, with in IPv4 world, is a waste.

Please Stackers! FWaaS needs to be able to handle NAT rules (I think)...
 ;-)

Cheers!
Thiago


On 19 December 2013 12:23, Abbass MAROUNI <abbass.marouni at virtualscale.fr>wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Why is it not possible to do port forwarding with neutron L3 ?
> Any alternative to manually adding to iptables of each virtual router ?
>
> Best regards,
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list:
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
> Post to     : openstack at lists.openstack.org
> Unsubscribe :
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20131219/70fef477/attachment.html>