cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Huang <Alex.Hu...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] IPv6 support draft functional spec(phase 1)
Date Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:58:43 GMT
Sheng,

Can you add in that SG does not support IPv6?  Make sure everyone knows that.

--Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:58 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] IPv6 support draft functional spec(phase 1)
> 
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Sheng Yang <sheng@yasker.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Anthony Xu <Xuefei.Xu@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> >> More comments,
> >>
> >> Can VM access VM by name on IPv6 network( router VM provide DNS
> service ?)?
> >
> > Yes, dnsmasq would provide AAAA records.
> >
> >> Is password-reset service supported on IPv6 network?
> >
> > Should be in the future, but not phase 1, which only provide DNS and DHCP.
> >
> >> Is meta-data and user-data service supported on IPv6 network?
> >
> > Not phase 1.
> >
> >> Is external network device (F5, SRX) supported on IPv6 network?
> >
> > Not in the plan.
> >
> >> What's the impact for Security enabled shared network?
> >
> > Not in the plan. Only support shared network without SG in the phase 1.
> >
> >> What's the impact for multiple IPs per NIC?
> >
> > I guess we may no longer need to have another nic for different public
> > subnet, but need to be confirmed.
> 
> So I would update the systemvm first, adding the newer version of
> dnsmasq and radvd.
> 
> Does anyone has specific suggestion on which version to be used? I can
> get the dnsmasq from debian testing repo and it works for me. Radvd
> can be get from debian stable repo, but I assume it maybe kind of old.
> 
> --Sheng
> >
> > --Sheng
> >>
> >> Anthony
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:26 AM
> >>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] IPv6 support draft functional spec(phase 1)
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Anthony Xu <Xuefei.Xu@citrix.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > My misunderstanding, I thought that's the link-local ip in Xenserver
> >>> or KVM:-)
> >>> >
> >>> > If a VM is on both IPv6 and IPv4 network, what's the link-local
> >>> address? IPv4? IPv6? Both?
> >>>
> >>> For dual stack case, we still require IPv6 link-local address only.
> >>>
> >>> --Sheng
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Anthony
> >>> >
> >>> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>> >> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:13 AM
> >>> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] IPv6 support draft functional spec(phase
1)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Anthony Xu <Xuefei.Xu@citrix.com>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > Thanks for the write-up,
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > One comment,
> >>> >> > Is there any reason not use link-local IPv4 address?
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >>*User VM would have one link-local IPv6 address
> >>> >>
> >>> >> IPv6 required one auto configured link local address per nic(means
> >>> >> likely one nic would have more than one IP address, and in the
> >>> >> different subnet), and the link local address would be used to
send
> >>> >> out DHCP request etc(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3315). It's
also
> >>> >> the basic of Neighbor discovery mechanism in
> >>> >> IPv6(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861).
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I think IPv4 link-local is less relevant in this case...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --Sheng
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>> >> >> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> >>> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:11 PM
> >>> >> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>> >> >> Subject: [DISCUSS] IPv6 support draft functional spec(phase
1)
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Hi,
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> The first draft of IPv6 FS is available at
> >>> >> >>
> >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/IPv6+support
> >>> >> >> now.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Basically based on our previous discussion, we would like
to
> >>> stick
> >>> >> to
> >>> >> >> dnsmasq, and assume shared network for advance zone in
the
> phase
> >>> one,
> >>> >> >> to make thing as simple as possible in phase 1.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Comments/questions are welcome!
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> --Sheng

Mime
View raw message