cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karl Harris <karl.har...@sungard.com>
Subject Re: Working on CloudStack Jira-764:nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC email 2 of 2
Date Thu, 20 Feb 2014 15:35:40 GMT
All,

Here's what I've got so far with partitioning the problem.

There are 3 main areas I've found so far along with a proposal for
implementation.



Keepalived:

As Is:

Current VRR network configuration setup is assumed by the existing code to
be static. A single Keepalived config template file is edited at router VM
boot time. The script cloud-early-config.sh and other BASH scripts are used
to edit the template. The output of the edits is a keepalived.conf file
used to configure the Keepalived application when the router VM boots.

Desired:

Ability (API, Java wrapper?) to  configure/reconfigure Keepalived as the
number of NIC's and other parameters change, a type of CRUD functionality
along with start/stop/restart, which will allow the configuration state of
network to be realized in the CloudStack database and NOT embedded
statically in a combination of keepalived.conf.tmpl, hypervisorbased VM
images and the actual edited keepalived.conf file.  The operational state
of the network is obviously kept by keepalived and conntrackd as well at
the virtual router application itself.


Conntrackd:

As Is:
Current Router state is managed by Conntrackd which is setup similarly to
Keepalived using cloud-early-config.sh BASH script.

Desired:

Similarly to keepalived above: Ability (API, Java wrapper?) to do
CRUD,start,stop,restart on Conntrackd network configuration.


CloudStack Java code:

As is:

CloudStack only allows Virtual redundant routers for a single, static
configuration for public networks mainly because of the lack of the ability
to the existing code to dynamically
change the configuration of the keepalived and conntrackd applications. As
mentioned in a previous thread, it appears most, if not all, of the JAVA
code used for public network redundant routers is available to use for
implementation of VPC virtual redundant routers if the ability to
dynamically reconfigure the network configuration of  keepalived and
conntrackd can be realized. Obviously additions to the JAVA code will need
to be made to utilize the new CRUD functionality for keepalived and
contrackd. As mentioned previously most if not all of the information is
already in the MySQL database accessible via DAO/VO's

Desired:

CloudStack to be able to manipulate the keepalived and conntrackd
applications to allow for dynamic configuration of VPC networks(s) which
require virtual redundant router capability.




Comments on this partitioning of the issues?

Did I miss any major part?




On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Sheng Yang <sheng@yasker.org> wrote:

> Hi Karl,
>
> From Network Guru part of view, there is no VPC or isolated network guru.
> Guru is per network type, e.g. public network, guest network, control
> network, mgmt network. So VPC contained one public and multiple guest
> network, which would be created by each guru accordingly. By this means,
> VPC or isolated network is not a guru.
>
> The configuration of VR is done in VirtualNetworkApplianceManager and
> VPCVirtualNetworkApplianceManager, which would be called by Virtual Router
> element and VPC virtual router element. And they've already passed all the
> information VR needed for VPC. I think every information you needed to
> configure keepalived and conntrackd should be already there, except
> redundant_router=1 parameter.
>
> For original redundant router implementation, there are two major parts of
> code I've heavily modified: how to start two routers in one network(through
> findOrDeployVirtualRouterInGuestNetwork()), and how to program them(through
> cmdline parameter in the VR). I think the VPC implementation would face the
> same issues as well. You can take a look at current implementation and
> follow the code flow, to see if it would help you.
>
> --Sheng
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Karl Harris <karl.harris@sungard.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Karl Harris <karl.harris@sungard.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Would implementing a VPC Redundant Router Network Guru using the an
> > > extension of the NetworkGuru interface be an appropriate way to create
> a
> > > VPC network with redundant routers. It seems that extending Network
> Guru
> > > interface or extending one of it's children eg the abstract class
> > > GuestNetworkGuru would be a appropriate design path.
> > >
> > > Comments?
> > >
> > > Karl
> > >
> > I know the configuration of the VM which implement the redundant routers
> > are handled via BASH scripts and the environment variables int the VM
> > images are used to configure the conntrackd and keepalived applications
> via
> > SED in bash scripts. I am looking for a clean way to pass the variable
> > number of NIC's and then generate the LINK and IGNORE configuration
> > commands for conntrackd.
> >
> > The Network Guru mentioned above seemed like an interesting place to
> look,
> > even though it's used to work with the DAO's for the NetworkElements.
> >
> > Karl
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Sheng Yang <sheng@yasker.org> wrote:
> > >> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Karl Harris <
> karl.harris@sungard.com
> > >> >wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Daan Hoogland <
> > daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> > >> >> >wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On 03 Feb 2014, at 19:45, Karl Harris <karl.harris@sungard.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Daan Hoogland <
> > >> >> daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> > >> >> > >wrote:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >>
> > >> >> > >> On 03 Feb 2014, at 18:03, Karl Harris <
> karl.harris@sungard.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> > >>
> > >> >> > >>> After discussion with my colleagues  questions
about initial
> > >> >> > >>> configuration of the open network redundant
routers and the
> > >> >> > >>> applicability of the existing bash scripts
> (cloud-early-config)
> > >> to
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > >>> setup of VPC redundant routers have generated.
> > >> >> > >>>
> > >> >> > >>>
> > >> >> > >>> Some setup first: In the bash script cloud-early-config
there
> > is
> > >> a
> > >> >> > >>> function named setup_redundant_router which
makes copies of
> > >> several
> > >> >> > >>> template files. The template files are used
to configure
> > >> keepalived
> > >> >> > >>> and conntrackd. The template copies are edited,
via sed
> editor,
> > >> using
> > >> >> > >>> environment variables ($ROUTER_PR, $ETH0_IP,$NAME,
etc.)
>  which
> > >> are
> > >> >> > >>> obtained from the kernel of the current running
linux image
> > >> using the
> > >> >> > >>> virtual file system /proc/cmdline.
> > >> >> > >>>
> > >> >> > >>> I'm sure keepalived and conntrackd  can be used
for starting
> > and
> > >> >> > >>> control of VPC redundant routers. However the
setup of
> > >> keepalived and
> > >> >> > >>> conntrackd for VPC needs setup parameters which
are dynamic
> > >> because a
> > >> >> > >>> VPC can have N number of redundant router pairs,
not just the
> > >> fixed
> > >> >> > >>> number parsed from proc/cmdline in the running
kernel.
> > >> >> > >>>
> > >> >> > >>> Am I correct in this analysis?
> > >> >> > >> Karl, I think not. There is only one router in a
vac, it
> routes
> > >> for
> > >> >> all
> > >> >> > >> networks in the virtual private cloud. Am I misreading
your
> > >> >> description.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Ok then a VPC should contain a single router containing
N+1
> (N+2
> > if
> > >> >> > using a
> > >> >> > > VPN connection) nic's? Where N is the number of private
> networks.
> > >> >> > And I would like to see N+3 as it will allocate another when
a
> > >> private
> > >> >> > gateway is defined. That is why I proposed to pre-allocate
this
> nic
> > >> to be
> > >> >> > able to predict mic-ids, i.e. eth<#>.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > If so then my original question still holds in the sense
that
> the
> > >> nic's
> > >> >> > > need to be created in the VM kernel based on the number
of
> > private
> > >> >> > networks
> > >> >> > > desired?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Yes
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > I found the method update_System_Vm_Templates in the
jar file
> > >> >> > > Upgrade410to420 in
> cloud-engine-schema/src/com/cloud/upgrade/dao
> > >> which
> > >> >> > > seems to point to a set of pre-configured VM images.
> > >> >> > I can not find the method you describe but these preconfigured
> > >> images are
> > >> >> > the ones used for all the system vms. That would be secondary
> > storage
> > >> >> vms,
> > >> >> > console proxy vms and indeed the router vms.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Based on the discussion above the the configuration part
of the
> VPC
> > >> >> redundant router is:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>  1. Collecting the correct data required to configure the nics.
(Is
> > >> this
> > >> >> part already in the VPC setup code? I will look for it, pointers
> will
> > >> be
> > >> >> helpful.)
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > vpc_guestgw.sh
> > >> and VpcVirtualNetworkApplianceManager and -Impl and their ancestors
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>  2. Based on the hypervisor/vm types configure the nic(s) on the
> > >> router VM
> > >> >> using the data collected above (Same question as in 1 above is
this
> > >> code
> > >> >> already in place?). My guess is to start with a preconfigured
> > template
> > >> and
> > >> >
> > >> > configure the vm based on the number of nics and any other
> appropriate
> > >> data.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>  3. Configuring conntrackd and keepalived after the router vm
> (nics)
> > >> have
> > >> >> been configured and the router(s) started or restarted? I still
> need
> > to
> > >> >> work through this.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Likely you would need this.
> > >> >
> > >> > Don't know if keepalived can be start if there is no virtual IP
> > >> definition.
> > >> >
> > >> > You also need to think about what to do second router(or the router
> > >> pair)
> > >> > when the last tier of VPC has been destroyed.
> > >> >
> > >> > --Sheng
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > >>
> > >> >> > >>> If so, given the dynamic nature of the VPC redundant
router
> > >> >> > >>> configurations: Is using a setup_VPC_redundant_router
bash
> > >> function,
> > >> >> > >>> similar to the existing open network function
mentioned
> above,
> > >> the
> > >> >> > >>> most appropriate way to setup the keepalived
or conntrackd
> > >> >> > >>> configuration files for VPC redundant routers
in the
> > >> >> > >>> cloud-early-script? It seems to me reading the
parameters
> from
> > >> the
> > >> >> > >>> kernel will require a unwieldy set of kernels
to match the N
> > >> private
> > >> >> > >>> network redundant router pairs configured by
the enduser.
> > >> >> > >>>
> > >> >> > >>>
> > >> >> > >>> Comments, questions, clarifications?
> > >> >> > >>
> > >> >> > >>>
> > >> >> > >>> Karl
> > >> >> > >>>
> > >> >> > >>>
> > >> >> > >>> In the bash script ea
> > >> >> > >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Daan Hoogland
<
> > >> >> > daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> > >>>> good reason to skip it for a next version,
let's look into
> it
> > >> >> anyway,
> > >> >> > >>>> as we don't want to burn any of our ships.
> > >> >> > >>>>
> > >> >> > >>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Karl Harris
<
> > >> >> karl.harris@sungard.com
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> > >>>>> All,
> > >> >> > >>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>> At first redundant DHCP seemed like
a good idea. I did some
> > >> cursory
> > >> >> > >>>>> research and the more I read the more
I'm convinced it may
> be
> > >> >> > >>>>> more trouble than its worth for the
first implementation.
> > I'll
> > >> talk
> > >> >> > >>>>> with some of our Systems Engineer's
here and get a broader
> > >> >> > >>>>> perspective.
> > >> >> > >>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>> There seems to be only a single implementation
of an open
> > >> source
> > >> >> DHCP
> > >> >> > >>>>> server that will handle the synchronization
required for
> > >> redundant
> > >> >> > >>>>> servers.
> > >> >> > >>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>> Karl
> > >> >> > >>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Daan
Hoogland <
> > >> >> > >> daan.hoogland@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > >>>>>> Saurav,
> > >> >> > >>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>> Not sure how this happens now, but
it is definateluy
> > >> something we
> > >> >> > >>>>>> want. For the static conf files
it won't be much of a
> > >> problem. The
> > >> >> > >>>>>> firewall/loadbalences won't be much
of a problem, they are
> > >> fire
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> > >>>>>> forget configurations of the ms
that can just be sent to
> > >> both. The
> > >> >> > >>>>>> dhcp is a challange. I am not sure
if it is solved for the
> > >> plain
> > >> >> rvr
> > >> >> > >>>>>> now but it should be solved for
that as well.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:53 PM,
Saurav Lahiri
> > >> >> > >>>>>> <saurav.lahiri@sungard.com>
wrote:
> > >> >> > >>>>>>> Daan,
> > >> >> > >>>>>>> I was wondering if you had not
shared your thoughts, but
> > >> looks
> > >> >> like
> > >> >> > >> I had
> > >> >> > >>>>>>> missed your mail.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>> I agree that redundant dhcp
or dns would be good to have.
> > >> What I
> > >> >> > >> meant was,
> > >> >> > >>>>>>> it appears that by  just enabling
RVR   there is no way
> to
> > >> auto
> > >> >> > sync
> > >> >> > >>>>>>> configuration between the  master
and slave nodes with
> > >> regard to
> > >> >> > >> dhcp,
> > >> >> > >>>>>>> loadbalancer and firewall(specifically
the dhcp lease
> file,
> > >> >> > >> haproxy,cfg and
> > >> >> > >>>>>>> iptables configuration).  So
just enabling RVR does not
> > >> ensure
> > >> >> high
> > >> >> > >>>>>>> availability for  these services.
Is there a way
> cloudstack
> > >> >> > autosyncs
> > >> >> > >>>>>>> configuration?
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>> For the routing portion this
is not an issue as the
> > >> participating
> > >> >> > >> routers
> > >> >> > >>>>>>> learn the route through known
protocols.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>> Thanks
> > >> >> > >>>>>>> Saurav
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:37
AM, Daan Hoogland <
> > >> >> > >> daan.hoogland@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> Saurav, I don't see why
you can't benefit from having
> > other
> > >> >> > services
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> redundant as well. Vpn might
be a problem as the source
> ip
> > >> of a
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> redundant router pair on
a vpn might give a problem
> (maybe
> > >> there
> > >> >> > is
> > >> >> > >> an
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> implementation) but why
wouldn't you want redundant dhcp
> > or
> > >> dns
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> services? As I understand
it these are used at Schuberg
> > >> Philis
> > >> >> at
> > >> >> > >> the
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> moment. will double check
when I get a chance.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> regards,
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> Daan
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at
1:33 PM, Saurav Lahiri
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> <saurav.lahiri@sungard.com>
wrote:
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> Daan,
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> So looking at what is
available today for guest
> network,
> > >> the
> > >> >> > >> Redundant VR
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> can be enabled only
for the source nat service. I guess
> > the
> > >> >> > >> mention of
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> source nat router is
in relation to that. I could be
> > wrong
> > >> >> > though.
> > >> >> > >> It
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> appears  that the other
services like vpn, dhcp, dns do
> > not
> > >> >> > >> benefit much
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> from the RVR capability.
Can you clarify if thats
> > correct?
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> Saurav
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014
at 2:27 AM, Karl Harris <
> > >> >> > >> karl.harris@sungard.com
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded
message ----------
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> From: Daan Hoogland
<daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Jan 15,
2014 at 2:51 PM
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: rvr4vpc
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> To: Karl Harris
<karl.harris@sungard.com>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: Christopher
Litsinger <
> > >> christopher.litsinge@sungard.com>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> H Karl,
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing.
I didn't want to initiate this
> but I
> > >> >> > >> encourage you
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> to share this on
the dev list (not in jira) as things
> > are
> > >> only
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> considered 'discussed'
if they passed by there.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> You speak of '1
Get configuration data on Source Nat
> > >> Router',
> > >> >> I
> > >> >> > >> don't
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> understand why you
call the router by this
> designation.
> > >> >> 'Source
> > >> >> > >> Nat'
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> is only one of it's
many possible functions.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> Apart from the design
principles I shared with you I
> > have
> > >> so
> > >> >> far
> > >> >> > >> only
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> a technical implementation
detail so far. That is to
> > >> reserve
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> (eth2) interface
for the private gateway on the vpc
> > (r)vr.
> > >> >> This
> > >> >> > >> way
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> the inteface to
configure are somewhat predictable.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> As for the design
principle to have a statefull router
> > >> (reboot
> > >> >> > >> proof)
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> the idea is to implement
a configuration file that
> will
> > be
> > >> >> > >> uploaded to
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> the router after
which a self-config command is send
> > that
> > >> will
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> implement the details
of configuring the interfaces,
> > >> haproxy
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> keepalived and maybe
more. I think your current
> > >> assessment of
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> working of the RVRs
is accurate but it will not be
> > >> workable
> > >> >> for
> > >> >> > an
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> implementation for
vpc's as they have an unpreditable
> > >> number
> > >> >> of
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> interfaces.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> to bad you can't
make it next thursday,
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> Daan Hoogland
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 15,
2014 at 3:25 PM, Karl Harris <
> > >> >> > >> karl.harris@sungard.com>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Daan,
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the
delayed response but as Christopher
> > >> mentioned
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > >> you in
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> his
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> email I am getting
my head around the CloudStack
> > >> software.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Since I am new
to CloudStack but "old" to enterprise
> > >> level
> > >> >> JAVA
> > >> >> > >> the
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> task
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> is
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> large but not
impossible. I have no experience with
> > >> running
> > >> >> > >> CloudStack
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> but
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> considerable
experience designing and maintaining
> large
> > >> JAVA
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> applications.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> I've created
what I believe is a very high level
> > >> abstract of
> > >> >> > how
> > >> >> > >> the
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> current
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> guest VRR's
are created for guest networks with the
> > >> intent of
> > >> >> > >> making
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> this
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> abstract
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> more detailed.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> 1 Get configuration
data on Source Nat Router
>  selected
> > >> as a
> > >> >> > >> redundant
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> router
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>  1.1 Public
and Guest network identified.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2 Both routers
are provisioned
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>  2.1 Software
 trys different,
> > >> >> > >> regions(?),zones,pods,clusters,hosts
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> in
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> that order as
the location of the router. Log maximum
> > >> >> > "distance"
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> apart.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> 3 Keepalived
is configured
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> 4 Both routers
are started
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> 5 Keepalived
is started
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Obviously there
is much more that is happening under
> > >> each of
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > >> steps
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> above. My intent
is to complete this detailed "as is"
> > >> listing
> > >> >> > as
> > >> >> > >> much
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> as
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> can. Then  using
the "as is" description/sequence
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> make a "to-be"
addition for VPC's. When I get a
> > >> consensus on
> > >> >> > WHAT
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> needs
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> be implemented
for the VRR in VPC  then develop HOW
> > best
> > >> to
> > >> >> > >> implement
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> "to-be" addition
with the
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> existing JAVA
code as well as what additional classes
> > >> need to
> > >> >> > be
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> extended/implemented/created.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Comments, critiques
and changes to the above sequence
> > are
> > >> >> > >> encouraged.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> I plan on posting
this to the dev-list/Jira very
> soon.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> I have been
using this functional spec as a guide,
> > after
> > >> >> > >> discussing
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> this
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> with our Systems
Engineering people this spec meets
> our
> > >> >> > >> requirements.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you have
an implementation in mind?
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> We have an internal
Cloud Meeting with conflicts with
> > the
> > >> >> > >> cloudstack
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> "day"
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> next week so
I will not be in attendence.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Karl
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan
14, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Daan Hoogland <
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello overthere
in the states,
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorow
I will start some experimenting with
> redundant
> > >> vpc
> > >> >> > >> routers.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> This is
to check up on any findings and requirements
> > >> that
> > >> >> you
> > >> >> > >> might
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> have on
this. Once again I would not like to waste
> > work
> > >> on
> > >> >> > this
> > >> >> > >> as it
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> is really
a globally usable feature that is probably
> > >> >> > universal.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> please let
me know your status on this.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> If any of
you are coming to the cloudstack day in
> > London
> > >> >> next
> > >> >> > >> week,
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> let's meetup
next thursday.
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> kind regards,
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Daan Hoogland
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Karl O. Harris
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Cloud Software
Engineer
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sungard Availability
Services
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> Karl O. Harris
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> Cloud Software Engineer
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> Sungard Availability
Services
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>>
> > >> >> > >>>>> --
> > >> >> > >>>>> Karl O. Harris
> > >> >> > >>>>> Cloud Software Engineer
> > >> >> > >>>>> Sungard Availability Services
> > >> >> > >>>>
> > >> >> > >>>
> > >> >> > >>>
> > >> >> > >>>
> > >> >> > >>> --
> > >> >> > >>> Karl O. Harris
> > >> >> > >>> Cloud Software Engineer
> > >> >> > >>> Sungard Availability Services
> > >> >> > >>
> > >> >> > >>
> > >> >> > >>
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > --
> > >> >> > > Karl O. Harris
> > >> >> > > Cloud Software Engineer
> > >> >> > > Sungard Availability Services
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Karl O. Harris
> > >> >> Cloud Software Engineer
> > >> >> Sungard Availability Services
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Daan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Karl O. Harris
> > > Cloud Software Engineer
> > > Sungard Availability Services
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Karl O. Harris
> > Cloud Software Engineer
> > Sungard Availability Services
> >
>



-- 
Karl O. Harris
Cloud Software Engineer
Sungard Availability Services

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message