Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of manan.shah@citrix.com
 designates 66.165.176.63 as permitted sender)
From: Manan Shah <manan.shah@citrix.com>
To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
	<cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:54:34 -0800
Subject: Re: [Discuss] Support for multiple ip ranges.
Thread-Topic: [Discuss] Support for multiple ip ranges.
Thread-Index: Ac37TvN1gQPXUvBzRX6QQ91+qhFJVw==
Message-ID: <CD284CE9.1C2C4%manan.shah@citrix.com>
In-Reply-To: <5990C64E-4586-48CA-8543-4EF9E8E33FA9@citrix.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Can you please identify what is being done in the FS? I am still not
clear. For the functionality that already works, are you modifying them?
How are you going to handle management IP Ranges.

Please update the FS with your implementation plans. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Manan Shah


On 1/25/13 12:46 AM, "Bharat Kumar" <bharat.kumar@citrix.com> wrote:

>Hi Manan,
>find my answers inline.
>
>On Jan 25, 2013, at 5:22 AM, Manan Shah <manan.shah@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Bharat Kumar,
>>=20
>> I have some additional questions regarding this spec.
>>=20
>> 1. Can you specify the scope of your feature? Assuming you are only
>> addressing the Guest IP part and not Management IP part, correct?
>   The scope is both management and guest ip ranges.
>>=20
>> 2. For the Advanced Shared, I realized after writing these requirements
>> that adding more ranges to the existing subnet for a Shared Network is
>> already possible today. For different subnets, I believe Anthony has
>>taken
>> a different approach which is contradictory to yours. Are you suggesting
>> that we will support both ways?
> I think we should not support two methods to do the same thing.
>  =20
>>=20
>> 3. For Basic Zone, it also seems that this is already possible to extend
>> an existing subnet for the POD. For an additional subnet on the same
>>POD,
>> would this new API work and how different/similar are the approaches
>>going
>> to be compared to Advanced Shared network?
>
>The plan is to use this API for different subnets also.
>What i mentioned in the functional  spec is one of the ways to do this
>and I am open to new ideas.
>I think before we finalize the approach we should understand the pros and
>cons of each of these
>methods and decide on the approach accordingly.
>
>>=20
>> Regards,
>> Manan Shah
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On 1/19/13 3:08 AM, "Bharat Kumar" <bharat.kumar@citrix.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> Hi Sanjeev,=20
>>> find my comments inline.
>>>=20
>>> On Jan 17, 2013, at 4:31 PM, Sanjeev Neelarapu
>>> <sanjeev.neelarapu@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> Hi,
>>>>=20
>>>> I have reviews Multiple IP Ranges FS available @
>>>>=20
>>>>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Multiple+Ip+rang
>>>>es
>>>> +FS and below are my review comments:
>>>>=20
>>>> 1.Is there any limit on no.of subnets/IP ranges that can be added for
>>>> guest?(since a new nic is added on router vm for every different
>>>>subnet)
>>>   There is a limit on the number of nics a VM can have depending on the
>>> hypervisor. So if we go ahead with the present  idea there will be a
>>> limit on the number of subnets. I also came to know alternative method,
>>> we can add multiple ips to the same nic of a VM. I still need to see if
>>> there are any downsides  to this.
>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> 2.Do we support adding multiple subnets in the same vlan incase of
>>>> Shared guest network in Advanced zone?
>>>  I think this can be done as an enhancement once we are done with the
>>> basic implementation.
>>>>=20
>>>> 3.Can we shrink the existing IP ranges(Guest/Management)?
>>>     Shrinking an ip range is possible as long as none of the ips which
>>> are being removed due to shrinkage are in use. We still need to discuss
>>> if this functionality is required.
>>>>=20
>>>> 4.Can we add non-contiguos guest ip ranges for Basic zone?
>>>    yes.
>>>>=20
>>>> 5.Do we support tagged IP Network for management traffic?
>>>  I don't  understand this question can you please elaborate it.
>>>>=20
>>>> 6.Is not-contiguous management IP ranges supported?
>>>  yes.=20
>>>>=20
>>>> 7. Is this supported in upgraded environment?
>>> The upgrade will not modify the existing ip ranges. we can just add new
>>> ip ranges after the upgrade.
>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Sanjeev
>>>>=20
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Bharat Kumar [mailto:bharat.kumar@citrix.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 5:27 PM
>>>> To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org;
>>>> cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: [Discuss] Support for multiple ip ranges.
>>>>=20
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>=20
>>>> Currently in cloudstack  we can add multiple public ip ranges. we want
>>>> to provide  similar flexibility  for management  and guest ip ranges.
>>>>=20
>>>> Motivation: There may be cases where some part of the subnet is
>>>> allocated for some other purpose and the admin wants to use the rest
>>>>of
>>>> the ip range or admin may want to add more ip address  once the old
>>>>ones
>>>> are exhausted. Admin may want to  add the ip ranges form the same
>>>>subnet
>>>> or from different one. Currently in cloudstack there is no flexibility
>>>> to do this for management and guest ip ranges (ip ranges from
>>>>different
>>>> subnets).=20
>>>>=20
>>>> This feature allows adding multiple management ip ranges in advanced
>>>> and basic zones,  and guest ip ranges in  basic zones.
>>>>=20
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Bharat Kumar.
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>