Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALytfWacFJ=B9Vevbev3vsNiEhNeGA6O1yn6FGNgzSTszai7Cg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALytfWacFJ=B9Vevbev3vsNiEhNeGA6O1yn6FGNgzSTszai7Cg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 11:57:00 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CA+2rt43TV4tKLwQohTEt8ijaW6XGNONwBroKUEq=9C+xgwPJiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 plan - questions
From: Sheng Yang <sheng@yasker.org>
To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
 <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Dave Cahill <dcahill@midokura.com> wrote:
> Hi,

Hi Dave,
>
> I've been catching up on IPv6 plans by reading the functional specs
> and Jira tickets - it's great to have so much material to refer to.
>
> I still have a few questions though, and I'm hoping someone involved
> with the feature can enlighten me.
>
> *[Support for Providers other than Virtual Router]*
> In [3], the spec says "No external device support in plan."
> What does this mean exactly?

Because CloudStack also supports using external devices as network
controller e.g. Juniper SRX as firewall and NetScaler as load
balancer. The words here said is just we don't support these devices
when using IPv6.
>
> For example, if using Providers other than the Virtual Router, does
> the UI still allow setting IPv6 addresses?
>
> If so, do we attempt to pass IPv6 addresses to the Providers no
> matter what, or do we check whether the Provider has IPv6 support?

Yes, we checked it when you try to create a IPv6 network(currently
only support advance shared network).

>
> *[Networking Modes]*
> Advanced Shared mode and Basic mode are mentioned in the Jira
> ticket [1] - "Isolated Network" is mentioned briefly in [2], but I
> wanted to check if the Advanced Isolated and VPC modes are on the
> roadmap?

There is no "basic isolated" network, so "Isolated" network is what
we're talking about. We haven't got plan for VPC yet.

And one correction: we didn't support "basic" mode for phase 1. We
support only "advance shared network" in phase 1. The supported cases
are described in FS. Jira ticket only provided a rough idea at the
time.
>
> *[IP Address Management / IPAM]*
> From [1], re: handing out IPv6 addresses: "One way could be that the
> network admin creates a static route for a /48 towards a Virtual
> Router and then the VR can hand out /64s to Instances."
>
> With IPv4, IPAM is handled by the CloudStack management server, and
> the VR is told which IP address to give to the VM over DHCP. Would
> this change with IPv6? "The VR can hand out /64s to instances" sounds
> like the VR is handling IPAM to some extent.

Well, it's not how it works now. Please refer to the FS. The current
implementation works like before. VR get a /64 then handle out IPv6
addresses to VM.
>
> From [3], "Router advertisement should be sent by public gateway in
> the network." - to double-check, does this mean the router outside the
> CloudStack network should send RAs, but the VR won't send RAs?

Yes. Because in phase 1, we support only "advance shared network", in
which case, VR is NOT the gateway. So we assume the gateway router
outside CloudStack should send out RA to the VMs.

But in the phase 2, VR would acting as gateway, then it would send out RAs.

--Sheng
>
> Thanks,
> Dave.
>
> [1] IPv6 Support main Jira ticket
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-452
>
> [2] IPv6 Support in CloudStack FS
> https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/ipv6-support-in-cloudstack.html
>
> [3] IPv6 Support FS
> https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/ipv6-support.html