You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Since servicegroup member can be in this case server or SLB vips, the setting might need to be flexible to specify server by name or just VIP address (IP based binding)
Describe alternatives you've considered
Doing explicit bindings using separate resource objects. I would like to avoid this if possible
Additional context
Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
we are not planning on combining binding with individual resources, as it creates complexity in implementing and debugging the resource.
So, I have implemented new resource to bind gslbservicegroup to gslbservicegroupmembers, which will be released today to the terraform registry. I will update you post release.
Hello @gusmb
Thanks for raising this feature request.
We have released this and it is now available in the terraform registry. Please download the latest terraform-provider-citrixadc version v1.38.0.
Contact us
Feature Request
I want to configure gslbservicegroup (https://registry.terraform.io/providers/citrix/citrixadc/latest/docs/resources/gslbservicegroup) in a similar way as servicegroup for SLB, managing the bindings implicitly and not explicitly by defining them separately. The following requirements need to be met:
Describe the solution you'd like
Would like to be able to define the gslbservicegroup with all implicit bindings, like this:
Since servicegroup member can be in this case server or SLB vips, the setting might need to be flexible to specify server by name or just VIP address (IP based binding)
Describe alternatives you've considered
Doing explicit bindings using separate resource objects. I would like to avoid this if possible
Additional context
Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: