cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Manan Shah (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CLOUDSTACK-452) IPv6 support
Date Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:09:12 GMT


Manan Shah commented on CLOUDSTACK-452:

I have added a requirements page so that this feature is tracked to a release. In addition
to the Basic Zone support mentioned above, another easier first step could be to also support
Advanced Zone - Shared Networks. In this use case also, VR mainly provides DHCP, DNS and user
data services.

> IPv6 support
> ------------
>                 Key: CLOUDSTACK-452
>                 URL:
>             Project: CloudStack
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>      Security Level: Public(Anyone can view this level - this is the default.) 
>            Reporter: Wido den Hollander
> This is quite a large feature, but we are lacking complete IPv6 support at this moment.
> We should support IPv6 for:
> - The Management server itself
> - Communication with the Hypervisors
> - Communication with the System VMs
> Those three are probably the easiest work, we also need to support IPv6 for instances.
> In both the Advanced and Basic zone Instances should be able to get a non-NAT true and
native IPv6 address.
> We should also not limit them to having one IP, they should be able to get multiple IPv6
> In the basic zone it can be done pretty easily by having the Virtual Router also hand
out IPv6 over DHCPv6 and have your router in the network handle the gateway work.
> In the advanced zone it becomes more difficult.
> One way could be that the network admin creates a static route for a /48 towards a Virtual
Router and then the VR can hand out /64s to Instances.
> But static routing can become a problem, so you might want to use OSPF, LISP or even
iBGP for getting those prefixes to the VR.
> This is a big feature, but I think the Basic zone is the easiest for now.
> In the Advanced Zone you COULD keep everything behind the VR IPv4 and have the VR do
IPv6 loadbalancing, but that would still not be true IPv6 connectivity.
> NAT in the VR seems like a firewall, but a true statefull firewall in the VR could do
the same while the Instances still have publicly routeable IPv6 addresses.
> There is no functional spec on this yet, but we have to keep this in mind that we need
IPv6 support. People are running out of IPv4 space.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see:

View raw message