Update functions-networking-options.md #125901
Conversation
|
@rapopescu16 : Thanks for your contribution! The author(s) have been notified to review your proposed change. |
|
Learn Build status updates of commit 69ca235: ✅ Validation status: passed
For more details, please refer to the build report. For any questions, please:
|
|
Can you review the proposed changes? Important: When the changes are ready for publication, adding a #label:"aq-pr-triaged" |
prmerger-automator
bot
added
the
aq-pr-triaged
| @@ -125,8 +125,8 @@ Considerations for the [Elastic Premium](./functions-premium-plan.md), [Dedicate | |||
| * The feature is available for Elastic Premium and App Service Premium V2 and Premium V3. It's also available in Standard but only from newer App Service deployments. If you are on an older deployment, you can only use the feature from a Premium V2 App Service plan. If you want to make sure you can use the feature in a Standard App Service plan, create your app in a Premium V3 App Service plan. Those plans are only supported on our newest deployments. You can scale down if you desire after that. | |||
| * The feature can't be used by Isolated plan apps that are in an App Service Environment. | |||
| * The app and the virtual network must be in the same region. | |||
| * The feature requires an unused subnet that's a /28 or larger in an Azure Resource Manager virtual network. | |||
| * The integration subnet can be used by only one App Service plan. | |||
| * The feature requires a subnet that's a /28 or larger in an Azure Resource Manager virtual network. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rapopescu16 @im-samz - if the subnet is being used by other services (like a private endpoint into, say, service bus or storage) then the virtual network integration would fail. While I understand that the subnet can be shared between multiple app service plans now, it can't also be delegated to other services right? I think this distinction would still be worth calling out. For Flex Consumption in the docs we made this distinction by using two different bullet points:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I addressed this in a separate PR wtih Glenn: https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs-pr/pull/299657/files
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@im-samz Should we close this PR if it was addressed in the private repo?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @v-dirichards, this comment was specifically for Thiago's suggestion. The changes raised in Raluca's PR were not part of that other PR.
|
@ggailey777 Could you review this proposed update to your article and enter Thanks! |
|
Can you review this old PR and determine whether it needs to be closed or merged? @MicrosoftDocs/public-repo-pr-review-team |
No description provided.