Open Stack

Could you please elaborate about your temporary solution ?
I couldn't get a VM to act as a router that will do the port forwarding for
other VMs in a private network. For some reason the VM cannot act as a
router.
Is it due to neutron networking ?

Best regards,



2013/12/19 Martinx - ジェームズ <thiagocmartinsc at gmail.com>

> 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/20131219/12c7d61b/attachment.html>