yahoo-eng-team team mailing list archive

[Armando Migliaccio <1524264@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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