cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Date Thu, 21 Jun 2018 14:56:40 GMT
For now I've created a Pull Request so we can have a discussion about it
there: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2720

Wido

On 06/21/2018 02:34 PM, Gabriel Beims Bräscher wrote:
> +1
> 
> We have an empty page regarding 5.0 [1] in the Design documents section
> [2]. It might be a good spot to sort out CloudStack 5.0 plans.
> 
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/5.0+Design+Documents
> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Design
> 
> 2018-06-21 5:58 GMT-03:00 Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>:
> 
>> well, that one is a good one to update, but there was a dedicated 5.0 page
>> at some time. I think we can just use this from here on in and merge
>> anything else in it when we find it ;)
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
>> rafaelweingartner@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This one [1]?
>>>
>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Roadmap
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wido, there used to be a page on cwiki with plans for 5.0, I can not
>> find
>>>> it anymore but this should be added to it.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, ilya musayev <
>>>> ilya.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1
>> VLAN
>>>>> for everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with
>> VLAN
>>>>> isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would we cover this use case?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike <
>>>>> Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have
>> to
>>>>>> break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <wido@widodh.nl>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
>>>>>>         > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a
good
>> time
>>> to
>>>>>> bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>>>>>>         >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with
>> you,
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>         might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         With that we would:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
>>>>>>         - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
>>>>>>         - Java 9?
>>>>>>         - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
>>>>>>         - Other fancy stuff?
>>>>>>         - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         How would that sound?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Wido
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         >> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander
<
>>>>>> wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>         >>
>>>>>>         >>
>>>>>>         >>
>>>>>>         >>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>>>>>         >>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big
but even
>>>>>> though I myself
>>>>>>         >>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are
there to
>>> give a
>>>>>> simple start
>>>>>>         >>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one
page
>>>>>> wizard for creating
>>>>>>         >>> a shared network in advanced zone with security
groups
>> and
>>>>>> userdata, great.
>>>>>>         >>
>>>>>>         >> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter
of
>> using
>>>>>> VLAN
>>>>>>         >> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because
>>> that's
>>>>>> basically
>>>>>>         >> what Basic Networking does.
>>>>>>         >>
>>>>>>         >> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
>>>>>>         >>
>>>>>>         >> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri
in
>>> Advanced
>>>>>> Networking
>>>>>>         >> you get exactly the same result.
>>>>>>         >>
>>>>>>         >>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS
more simple
>>> by
>>>>>> throwing at as
>>>>>>         >>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled
way :+1:
>>>>>>         >>
>>>>>>         >> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes
to
>> the
>>>> UI
>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>         >> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at
doing.
>>>>>>         >>
>>>>>>         >> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements
>>> at
>>>>>> the right
>>>>>>         >> location and you're done.
>>>>>>         >>
>>>>>>         >> Wido
>>>>>>         >>
>>>>>>         >>>
>>>>>>         >>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den
Hollander <
>>>>>> wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>         >>>>
>>>>>>         >>>> Hi,
>>>>>>         >>>>
>>>>>>         >>>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic
Networking
>>> and
>>>>>> recently
>>>>>>         >>>> started to look into Advanced Networking
with VLAN
>>>> isolation
>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>         >>>> shared network.
>>>>>>         >>>>
>>>>>>         >>>> This provides (from what we can see) all
the features
>>> Basic
>>>>>> Networking
>>>>>>         >>>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and
UserData
>> while
>>>> the
>>>>>> Hypervisor
>>>>>>         >>>> does the Security Grouping.
>>>>>>         >>>>
>>>>>>         >>>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic
Networking.
>>>>>>         >>>>
>>>>>>         >>>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem
for users
>> as
>>>>>> you can't
>>>>>>         >>>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In
theory we
>> found
>>>>>> out that it's
>>>>>>         >>>> possible by changing the database, but I
wouldn't
>>> guarantee
>>>>>> it works in
>>>>>>         >>>> every use-case. So doing this automatically
during a
>>>> upgrade
>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>         >>>> difficult.
>>>>>>         >>>>
>>>>>>         >>>> To prevent us from having to maintain the
Basic
>>> Networking
>>>>>> code for ever
>>>>>>         >>>> I would like to propose and discuss the
matter of
>>>> preventing
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>         >>>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
>>>>>>         >>>>
>>>>>>         >>>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot
of if-else
>>>>>> statements in the
>>>>>>         >>>> code and it would make testing also easier
as we have
>> few
>>>>>> things to test.
>>>>>>         >>>>
>>>>>>         >>>> Most of the development also seems to go
in the
>> Advanced
>>>>>> Networking
>>>>>>         >>>> direction.
>>>>>>         >>>>
>>>>>>         >>>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in
Advanced
>> Shared
>>>>>> Networks and
>>>>>>         >>>> that's progressing very good as well.
>>>>>>         >>>>
>>>>>>         >>>> Would this be something to call the 5.0
release where
>> we
>>>>>> simplify the
>>>>>>         >>>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of
Basic
>> Networking
>>>>>> while keeping
>>>>>>         >>>> it alive for existing users?
>>>>>>         >>>>
>>>>>>         >>>> Wido
>>>>>>         >>>>
>>>>>>         >>>
>>>>>>         >>>
>>>>>>         >>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daan
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rafael Weingärtner
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>>
> 

Mime
View raw message