Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
From: "Kelcey Damage \(BT\)" <kelcey@backbonetechnology.com>
To: <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
References: <4677C761-D869-4911-9FA5-28FE6B90275C@stratosec.co>
 <CCF4094F.3C3A5%chiradeep.vittal@citrix.com>
 <67EF18FDCA335F489B366120481AB6C5F6B38A3A46@BANPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
 <FE6534F7-BCFC-4016-8590-B2E22C161197@stratosec.co>
In-Reply-To: <FE6534F7-BCFC-4016-8590-B2E22C161197@stratosec.co>
Subject: RE: Functional Specification for the multiple IPs per NIC
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:40:38 -0800
Message-ID: <02db01cddd4f$2c89b6b0$859d2410$@backbonetechnology.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AQKLZ67orhtfsuJmzjsuC4TKomGMRAEncgLDAW/KjJ0CaT/MQZZ7yiyQ
Content-Language: en-us

Replies inline

>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Kinsella [mailto:jlk@stratosec.co]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:36 AM
>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Functional Specification for the multiple IPs per NIC
>
>Is there any logic behind 30? At some point, we're going to be asked, so
I'd
>like to have a decent answer. :)

If there is no logical reason, can we have this moved to accommodate
whatever size the private subnet is? i.e. CIDR.

>
>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?

If you need help on CloudInit let me know, I can usually assist with
non-Java tools.

>
>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+IP+
>>>>> 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