Thanks. Is the only API changed createNetwork?
What about specifying ip address when launching VMs by an admin? Is the systemvm in question only the dhcp system vm? Cpvm and ssvm are not included in this as well right? We should reconsider password service. It seems weird to me that if it's ipv6 then suddenly password service is not supported. Is it the same for user data? If these things existed for shared network in ipv4, it should work in ipv6. All of the questions you answered wrt external devices etc should be in the spec. --Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sh...@yasker.org] > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:07 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] IPv6 support draft functional spec(phase 1) > > 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
