cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] IPv6 support draft functional spec(phase 1)
Date Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:38:21 GMT
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.

--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