Comment 7 for bug 1905115

Hi Slawek, Brian and Michael

Thanks for your suggestions. But IMHO,These solutions is ponderous and heavyweight, whether create a extra VM to connect to external network or create a loadbalancer to do that. There are at least two reasons that result in I don't use these solutions on our cloud product:
1. If there are one thousand isolated networks in our cloud platform, so the one thousand extra VMs or loadbalancers need to be created. Without doubt, the cost is very huge. In our propaganda, the "low cost" is top priority. Opposed, The RFE proposed solution's cost almost negligible.

2. The complexity of these solutions maybe let our users go away from our cloud platform. Suppose a user create a isolated network and create a VM that installed business system (not only windows) on this network, and the user connnect the VM by VNC or SPICE client. If the user want activate the system, he must refer to our manual docs and do a lot of steps, such as: Step1, create a VM or LB; Step2, let they connect to external network; Step3, balabalabala. I already imagine that the user "shit" our system.

Additionally, IMO, we shouldn't too much attention to the technology aspect, but also more attention to the user aspect. If we provide more convenient tools to users, the more an more users will like our product. They will "wow" our system.

BTW, I read the meeting log. I want to say the list of external services should be configred in neutron-metadata-agent configration file, and neutron-server configuration file can specify that enable which external services channels. Further more, The network should extend a parameter like "external_service_channels", then by update the parameter to control the network open which "channels".