Configuring VPC Firewalls Reviews

The way the words "higher" and "lower are used when referring to priority is opposite of how they are used by Google's official documentation. This is obviously a bug with the English language, but this ambiguity can still be avoided by using separate phrasing like "priority number" when referring to the number and "priority" when talking about the actual rank of the evaluation. Coursera lab examples: 1. "Currently, the VMs are still able to ping each other because the rule that denies ICMP has a higher priority than the allow ICMP rule." (Saying 2000 is a "higher" priority than 1000) 2. "Even though the egress rule has a much higher priority of 10000, it is still blocking traffic." (Saying "10000" is a "higher" priority than 1000) The numbers are technically higher, but since higher numbers have a lower priority, this wording is confusing. GCP documentation tends to use the phrase "priority number" when referring to a higher or lower number, which removes this confusion. Lower priority numbers have a higher priority and vice versa. GCP documentation examples: (From https://cloud.google.com/vpc/docs/firewalls) 1. "Rules you create can override them as long as your rules have higher priorities (priority numbers less than 65535)" (Uses "priority number" for the integer and "priority" for the rank) 2. "If the priority of the second rule is set to a number greater than 1000, it will have a lower priority, so the first rule denying all traffic will apply." 3. Lower integers indicate higher priorities. If you do not specify a priority when creating a rule, it is assigned a priority of 1000. I understood the lab's definitions after some initial confusion, but his should be unambiguous as possible and should match how Google documents the feature. Otherwise the rest of the content was good, thanks!

Tyler W. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Benjamin S. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Patrik A. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Mohammed A. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Daniel C. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Michael H. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Ramesh P. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Mohammed A. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Ramesh P. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Peter X. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Hiroyuki M. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Ireneusz K. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

nice

Ambrish G. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Oriol M. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Román F. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Firewalling CLI is good.

LV I. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Brad L. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Jorge A. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Leonardo Q. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Jorge A. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Lukas R. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Todor K. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Fabien P. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Daniel V. · Reviewed over 6 years ago

Ryan P. · Reviewed over 6 years ago