cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gabriel Beims Bräscher <gabrasc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Date Thu, 21 Jun 2018 12:34:04 GMT
+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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message