From cloudstack-dev-return-16704-apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Thu Jan 10 19:10:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C0D23EA3B for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 19:10:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 66458 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jan 2013 19:10:02 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 66415 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jan 2013 19:10:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 66407 invoked by uid 99); 10 Jan 2013 19:10:02 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 19:10:02 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.223.170] (HELO mail-ie0-f170.google.com) (209.85.223.170) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 19:09:56 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id k10so1313907iea.29 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:09:35 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Oh+uMw8/blrFReDxL0IlFDqHjJdFO8wuHTywIln5KVE=; b=mrtkoBn9AvFlZDa9E/dVAZWiWSraEwV+bS7OKXdnT7/DVTxu1rSx8AC4E1uPzB5crK HSN7UjihKDkE0XEFEenYVnJlC3bbydwhEXpwt65A4pjomyDHpanUWsGrPlsFcG4pyaOz z89eKtCpO61eYRHGXS2mbusGiK3RTHgnMsJE6NpRxnQf9PJJRZu9IalwFB6QSBYaAUN4 KqJvNPgkCHnTtxdbLXr8sd4pNG2nlUCu+54TcD7exfUoGyP2Bfknb77cft2x6b8o3D9x Sz98lCGQ1XtAYSD4qIDPx5MAfm9ENVAP+OxnKez+t3XIaRVex8Gp9l1Afm3ILs7MaKRe 6Fkw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.196.138 with SMTP id im10mr6869739igc.83.1357844975700; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:09:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.137.225 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:09:35 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [63.110.51.11] In-Reply-To: <4A28C922-E497-4CCB-B3D3-4559066355E9@stratosec.co> References: <6DE00C9FDF08A34683DF71786C70EBF02F5A647E@SBPOMB402.sbp.lan> <9C9A3EB0-020C-4217-A55F-B4F06BE1ECC7@stratosec.co> <4A28C922-E497-4CCB-B3D3-4559066355E9@stratosec.co> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:09:35 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [ASFCS41] IPv6 Support From: Sheng Yang To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93403536fcbc304d2f3eb73 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkI2oUHCsrrIHla4nWxEsOOEnO7qRoGzXd1iMt2RPAY+7M/yiTPPsT5mPpHPzYtReCbsV3D X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --14dae93403536fcbc304d2f3eb73 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:57 PM, John Kinsella wrote: > On Jan 8, 2013, at 4:38 PM, Sheng Yang wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:31 PM, John Kinsella wrote: > > > >> > >> On Jan 8, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Sheng Yang > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> If there is no other opinions, I would begin with DHCPv6 in shared > >> network > >>> as first step. > >> > >> > >> Sure, one suggestion: I've been using ISC's dhcpd instead of dnsmasq > as > >> they have some silly limitations (in "test" but I keep meaning to > >> contribute). Might be a good time to switch? > >> > > > > Well, I think dhcpd cannot be using as DNS server. So seems you need to > > have both dhcpd and dnsmasq running. That's not that convenient as one = in > > all solution=85 > > I have dnsmasq running as a caching DNS resolver but not answering DHCP > requests. It might not be convenient, but at least it follows the RFC. := ) > > > And what's the limitation you're talking about regarding dnsmasq? > > dnsmasq will only offer leases within a single IP block on a given NIC. > e.g. if you want to offer leases on two /28s through eth0, dnsmasq can't = do > it. > > From a quick glance at it's man page, looks like it can do v4 and v6 > leases at the same time=85 > You mean dhcpd? I am exploring all the possibility right now. Currently dnsmasq in our systemvm doesn't support DHCPv6, so we would either update to a newer version dnsmasq, or using other dhcp server(e.g. dhcpd) on DHCPv6. But replacing the dhcp server is a big work, all the configuration need to be rewritten. Regarding dhcpd, I haven't figured out how much effort we need to spend if we want to switch. There is one possible solution for this release: say, using dhcpd only for IPv6, to reduce our effort of introducing IPv6(if it's easier than moving to dhcpd). And then we can make the choice in the later release. John, do you have some experiences can share regarding dhcpd? Also, regarding your problem, have you used cloudstack to distribute IP? I don't think we support leasing on two /28s in advance network now? --Sheng --14dae93403536fcbc304d2f3eb73--