cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>
Subject Re: IPv6 in VPC (was Re: IPv6 plan - questions)
Date Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:23:38 GMT
Hi Marcus,

Sorry for jump in late.

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com>wrote:

> I've discussed this a bit with various subject matter experts at our
> datacenters/business, and so far we're leaning toward a rollout like
> this:
>
> * VPC has no global IPv6 prefix (super CIDR as current private space),
> it's simply IPv6 enabled or not. Admins can choose to route a /60 or a
> /48 to a vpc and carve it up among the networks there, but it's not
> required or enforced by cloudstack.
>

I think it's better to use one global IPv6 prefix. One practical thing is,
site to site vpn in VPC. Currently we're using policy based s2s VPN(which
is the only choice we have for current linux kernel), and we can simply use
the whole CIDR for VPC as the source CIDR for VPN, which make thing very
convenient. The fragment of CIDR blocks would result in much more complex
VPN policy instead. And that's one of the reasons CloudStack enforced one
umbrella CIDR for VPC.


> * VPC networks get assigned one or multiple IPv6 prefixes, each prefix
> can be marked 'SLAAC', 'DHCP', or 'Manual'.
>
> * Mgmt server allows calling external plugins for pushing routes to
> routers upstream of VPCs (SDN or router API), but could be manually
> done by admins as well
>

It would be very nice if we can in-cooperate SLAAC and routing
automatically.

>
> * Work could be done in stages, e.g. SLAAC/manual network ranges would
> be fairly straightforward, whereas DHCP ranges would require
> programming scripts and ip allocation code.
>

The currently ipv6 table and code for shared network should be able to
reused for this purpose. They're basically the same for VPC I think.


>
> * An issue was raised about privacy concerns with SLAAC using MAC, but
> we think this revolves more around clients than servers; that is, a
> client moving around the country would be traceable because of the
> MAC, but a server always has the same address anyway.
>
> * Still need to figure out what to do about ACLs, that's a whole
> separate issue, but a plan needs to be in place. Do we care about port
> forwarding, static NAT, Load Balancing etc as well? Or at least think
> about what impact these decisions have.
>

I think we may care about LB, but may not PF or static nat or other NAT
related things, since we won't short of IPv6 address. LB is needed since we
would likely still need to face outside using one IP rather than a bunch of
IPs.

ACL would be more critical then since IPv6 vms can face the internet
directly, but it should similar to IPv4.


>
> * We assume there will be an ipv6 public range assignable, allocated
> for VPC routers/static nat/loadbalancers to pull from.
>

Do we want VMs in the VPC facing internet directly? Or do we still use
"public range" facing the internet? I think if ACL allows, we should let
VMs with IPv6 IP able to access by internet.

But LB would be a exception, so there would be some addresses for this
purpose, but we can simply allocate from VPC's own IP pool rather than
public range.

--Sheng


>
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I've put together a rough draft spec:
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/IPv6+in+VPC+Router
> >
> > I basically just laid out some rough ideas. I know there has been a
> > lot of discussion in the past about DHCPv6, etc. My hope is that we
> > can at least decide on a spec, for future reference.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> It's been a long time since I've heard anything in regards to IPv6,
> >> let alone VPC support. Does anyone have plans for this at all?  We'd
> >> like to support IPv6, and we have enough CS knowledge and external
> >> tools to hack something together, but I'd much prefer to build with
> >> the community and/or be forward compatible with what it deploys.
> >>
> >> I'd like to start with something simple, like perhaps optionally
> >> providing a /64 or larger as a parameter when creating a VPC (or a
> >> separate call to add an IPV6 block), and network on the vpc. Then it
> >> sounds like there's already a mechanism in place for tracking ipv6
> >> assignments to nics, that could be leveraged to pass dhcp assignments
> >> to routers.
> >>
> >> Then there's the whole acl thing, that seems like at least as big of a
> >> project as mentioned previously.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message