incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chiradeep Vittal <Chiradeep.Vit...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: Functional Specification for the multiple IPs per NIC
Date Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:31:50 GMT
Concur with Kelcey. Why is this a concern of MIPN? As long as the metadata includes all ips
assigned to the nic, cloud-init can be modified at any point in time to take advantage of
this metadata.
It is like saying AWS maintains cloud-init and changes it in lockstep to any new thing they
add to the instance metadata.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelcey Damage (BT) [mailto:kelcey@backbonetechnology.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 11:17 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Functional Specification for the multiple IPs per NIC
> 
> 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