cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: IPv6 plan - questions
Date Mon, 12 Aug 2013 21:47:44 GMT
has there been any further discussion that I might have missed around
ipv6 in VPC?

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Sheng Yang <sheng@yasker.org> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> I am glad it fits your need. That's our target. :)
>
> --Sheng
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Dave Cahill <dcahill@midokura.com> wrote:
>> Hi Sheng,
>>
>> Thanks for the quick reply, that helps a lot.
>>
>> My main purpose was to figure out how these changes affect virtual
>> networking and pluggability. Having read through the IPv6 code today,
>> it looks like it will work very nicely with virtual networks.
>>
>> For example, when VMs are assigned an IPv6 address, the IPv6 address
>> is stored in the NicProfile object. So, taking DHCP as an example, if
>> the MidoNet plugin implements the DHCPServiceProvider interface, it
>> will receive the NicProfile as one of the parameters of addDhcpEntry.
>> If we want to implement IPv6, we can then take the IPv6 address from
>> the NicProfile, and just use it as needed.
>>
>> Thanks again for taking the time to respond, and for the detailed FS.
>>
>> Dave.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Sheng Yang <sheng@yasker.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Dave Cahill <dcahill@midokura.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>> >
>>> > I've been catching up on IPv6 plans by reading the functional specs
>>> > and Jira tickets - it's great to have so much material to refer to.
>>> >
>>> > I still have a few questions though, and I'm hoping someone involved
>>> > with the feature can enlighten me.
>>> >
>>> > *[Support for Providers other than Virtual Router]*
>>> > In [3], the spec says "No external device support in plan."
>>> > What does this mean exactly?
>>>
>>> Because CloudStack also supports using external devices as network
>>> controller e.g. Juniper SRX as firewall and NetScaler as load
>>> balancer. The words here said is just we don't support these devices
>>> when using IPv6.
>>> >
>>> > For example, if using Providers other than the Virtual Router, does
>>> > the UI still allow setting IPv6 addresses?
>>> >
>>> > If so, do we attempt to pass IPv6 addresses to the Providers no
>>> > matter what, or do we check whether the Provider has IPv6 support?
>>>
>>> Yes, we checked it when you try to create a IPv6 network(currently
>>> only support advance shared network).
>>>
>>> >
>>> > *[Networking Modes]*
>>> > Advanced Shared mode and Basic mode are mentioned in the Jira
>>> > ticket [1] - "Isolated Network" is mentioned briefly in [2], but I
>>> > wanted to check if the Advanced Isolated and VPC modes are on the
>>> > roadmap?
>>>
>>> There is no "basic isolated" network, so "Isolated" network is what
>>> we're talking about. We haven't got plan for VPC yet.
>>>
>>> And one correction: we didn't support "basic" mode for phase 1. We
>>> support only "advance shared network" in phase 1. The supported cases
>>> are described in FS. Jira ticket only provided a rough idea at the
>>> time.
>>> >
>>> > *[IP Address Management / IPAM]*
>>> > From [1], re: handing out IPv6 addresses: "One way could be that the
>>> > network admin creates a static route for a /48 towards a Virtual
>>> > Router and then the VR can hand out /64s to Instances."
>>> >
>>> > With IPv4, IPAM is handled by the CloudStack management server, and
>>> > the VR is told which IP address to give to the VM over DHCP. Would
>>> > this change with IPv6? "The VR can hand out /64s to instances" sounds
>>> > like the VR is handling IPAM to some extent.
>>>
>>> Well, it's not how it works now. Please refer to the FS. The current
>>> implementation works like before. VR get a /64 then handle out IPv6
>>> addresses to VM.
>>> >
>>> > From [3], "Router advertisement should be sent by public gateway in
>>> > the network." - to double-check, does this mean the router outside the
>>> > CloudStack network should send RAs, but the VR won't send RAs?
>>>
>>> Yes. Because in phase 1, we support only "advance shared network", in
>>> which case, VR is NOT the gateway. So we assume the gateway router
>>> outside CloudStack should send out RA to the VMs.
>>>
>>> But in the phase 2, VR would acting as gateway, then it would send out RAs.
>>>
>>> --Sheng
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Dave.
>>> >
>>> > [1] IPv6 Support main Jira ticket
>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-452
>>> >
>>> > [2] IPv6 Support in CloudStack FS
>>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/ipv6-support-in-cloudstack.html
>>> >
>>> > [3] IPv6 Support FS
>>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/ipv6-support.html
>>>

Mime
View raw message