Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <B1DF26ECC0458748AC97CECE2DA98D41012FA33B21F7@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
References: 
 <CA+2rt43WvL0r4k0BSZopbCwM_Sc1NF_pcKM4qhME9bSHit10Og@mail.gmail.com>
	<B1DF26ECC0458748AC97CECE2DA98D41012FA33B21F7@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:12:38 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CA+2rt43xc24Y+9_U4Z9EeKziaib9cOLwUhheW9as15YW0f0Mow@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] IPv6 support draft functional spec(phase 1)
From: Sheng Yang <sheng@yasker.org>
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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