On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote: > Sheng, > > Can you add in that SG does not support IPv6? Make sure everyone knows that. >
Added in FS. --Sheng > --Alex > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sh...@yasker.org] >> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:58 AM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] IPv6 support draft functional spec(phase 1) >> >> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Anthony Xu <xuefei...@citrix.com> >> wrote: >> >> More comments, >> >> >> >> Can VM access VM by name on IPv6 network( router VM provide DNS >> service ?)? >> > >> > Yes, dnsmasq would provide AAAA records. >> > >> >> Is password-reset service supported on IPv6 network? >> > >> > Should be in the future, but not phase 1, which only provide DNS and DHCP. >> > >> >> Is meta-data and user-data service supported on IPv6 network? >> > >> > Not phase 1. >> > >> >> Is external network device (F5, SRX) supported on IPv6 network? >> > >> > Not in the plan. >> > >> >> What's the impact for Security enabled shared network? >> > >> > Not in the plan. Only support shared network without SG in the phase 1. >> > >> >> What's the impact for multiple IPs per NIC? >> > >> > I guess we may no longer need to have another nic for different public >> > subnet, but need to be confirmed. >> >> So I would update the systemvm first, adding the newer version of >> dnsmasq and radvd. >> >> Does anyone has specific suggestion on which version to be used? I can >> get the dnsmasq from debian testing repo and it works for me. Radvd >> can be get from debian stable repo, but I assume it maybe kind of old. >> >> --Sheng >> > >> > --Sheng >> >> >> >> Anthony >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sh...@yasker.org] >> >>> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:26 AM >> >>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] IPv6 support draft functional spec(phase 1) >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Anthony Xu <xuefei...@citrix.com> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> > My misunderstanding, I thought that's the link-local ip in Xenserver >> >>> or KVM:-) >> >>> > >> >>> > If a VM is on both IPv6 and IPv4 network, what's the link-local >> >>> address? IPv4? IPv6? Both? >> >>> >> >>> For dual stack case, we still require IPv6 link-local address only. >> >>> >> >>> --Sheng >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > Anthony >> >>> > >> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> >> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sh...@yasker.org] >> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:13 AM >> >>> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >>> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] IPv6 support draft functional spec(phase 1) >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Anthony Xu <xuefei...@citrix.com> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >> > Thanks for the write-up, >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > One comment, >> >>> >> > Is there any reason not use link-local IPv4 address? >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >>*User VM would have one link-local IPv6 address >> >>> >> >> >>> >> IPv6 required one auto configured link local address per nic(means >> >>> >> likely one nic would have more than one IP address, and in the >> >>> >> different subnet), and the link local address would be used to send >> >>> >> out DHCP request etc(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3315). It's also >> >>> >> the basic of Neighbor discovery mechanism in >> >>> >> IPv6(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861). >> >>> >> >> >>> >> I think IPv4 link-local is less relevant in this case... >> >>> >> >> >>> >> --Sheng >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> >> >> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sh...@yasker.org] >> >>> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:11 PM >> >>> >> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >>> >> >> Subject: [DISCUSS] IPv6 support draft functional spec(phase 1) >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Hi, >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> The first draft of IPv6 FS is available at >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/IPv6+support >> >>> >> >> now. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Basically based on our previous discussion, we would like to >> >>> stick >> >>> >> to >> >>> >> >> dnsmasq, and assume shared network for advance zone in the >> phase >> >>> one, >> >>> >> >> to make thing as simple as possible in phase 1. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Comments/questions are welcome! >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> --Sheng
