incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kelcey Damage \(BT\)" <kel...@backbonetechnology.com>
Subject RE: Functional Specification for the multiple IPs per NIC
Date Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:16:39 GMT
OK,

I must have missed something, or made an invalid assumption. I thought the
MIPN could be handled by metadata and not need to be re-written. 

I also figured guest management could be handled separate and make use of
the metadata.

If it requires a re-write down the road for what we are actively discussing
now, then it seems inefficient. Could we not find some sort of hybrid
solution, that would allow MIPN to move forward, but not potentially hinder
plans for CloudInit/guest management?

Thanks

>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Kinsella [mailto:jlk@stratosec.co]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 11:05 AM
>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Functional Specification for the multiple IPs per NIC
>
>Well, not quite. The question I might be clearly asking is: Do we build
MIPN
>now with intention to rewrite, or do we update the metadata/user-data code
>first?
>
>On Dec 18, 2012, at 10:58 AM, "Kelcey Damage (BT)"
><kelcey@backbonetechnology.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I guess we are all in agreement them :)
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John Kinsella [mailto:jlk@stratosec.co]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:56 AM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Functional Specification for the multiple IPs per NIC
>>>
>>> cloud-init's (more specifically, user-data) being mentioned because I
>>> see
>> an
>>> ongoing need of wanting to get instance-specific data into an instance.
>>>
>>> So, we can tweak meta-data to add support for multi-IP per NIC
>>> (MIPN), or we can take a step back and talk through how the metadata
>>> side of things could be beefed up before implementing MIPN to minimize
>future rewriting.
>>>
>>> The result is better compatibility with AWS, better security, and
>>> more standardized functionality going forward.
>>>
>>> Yes, this is a separate feature than the MIPN by itself. I meant to
>>> call
>> that out
>>> in my first bullet, apologies.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Dec 18, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Chiradeep Vittal
>>> <Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, not sure why cloud-init is being clubbed into this feature.
>>>>
>>>> The secondary ips can be made available through the usual metadata
>>> scheme.
>>>>
>>>> On 12/18/12 10:36 AM, "John Kinsella" <jlk@stratosec.co> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is there any logic behind 30? At some point, we're going to be
>>>>> asked, so I'd like to have a decent answer. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> On the rest of this, I'd like to get some level of consensus on the
>>>>> design. What looks best to me:
>>>>> * Improve UserData/CloudInit support in CloudStack (I'm willing to
>>>>> work on this, consider it important) - allow expiration of data,
>>>>> wider variety of data supported
>>>>> * Create the multi-IPs-per-NIC code to get IPs via CloudInit (Need
>>>>> to think through Windows equivalent)
>>>>> * Update the password changing script to use CloudInit
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts? Or Jayapal have you already started work on the multi-IP
>>>>> feature?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 18, 2012, at 2:03 AM, Jayapal Reddy Uradi
>>>>> <jayapalreddy.uradi@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding IP limit,  it can be made as configurable using global
>>>>>> settings and default value will be 30.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Jayapal
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:59 PM
>>>>>>> To: CloudStack DeveloperList
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Functional Specification for the multiple IPs per
>>>>>>> NIC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In basic/shared networks the allocation is bounded by what is
>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>> "used-
>>>>>>> up". To prevent tenants from hogging all the available ips, there
>>>>>>> needs to be limits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/15/12 8:38 AM, "John Kinsella" <jlk@stratosec.co>
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd remove the limitation of having 30 IPs per interface.
Modern
>>>>>>>> OSes can support way more.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why no support for basic networking? I can see a small hosting
>>>>>>>> provider with a basic setup wanting to manage web servers...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 14, 2012, at 9:37 AM, Jayapal Reddy Uradi
>>>>>>>> <jayapalreddy.uradi@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Current guest VM by default having one NIC and one IP
address
>>>>>>>>> assigned.
>>>>>>>>> If your wants extra IP for the guest VM, there no provision
>>>>>>>>> from the CS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Using multiple IP address per NIC feature CS can associate
IP
>>>>>>>>> address for the NIC,  user can take that IP and assign
it to the
VM.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please find the FS for  the more details.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Multiple
>>>>>>>>> +I
>>>>>>>>> P+a
>>>>>>> dd
>>>>>>>>> res
>>>>>>>>> s+per+NIC
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please provide your comments on the FS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> jayapal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure as a Service
>>>>>>>> o: 415.315.9385
>>>>>>>> @johnlkinsella
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure as a Service
>>>>> o: 415.315.9385
>>>>> @johnlkinsella
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure as a Service
>>> o: 415.315.9385
>>> @johnlkinsella
>>
>>
>>
>
>Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure as a Service
>o: 415.315.9385
>@johnlkinsella



Mime
View raw message