On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote: > Thanks. > > Is the only API changed createNetwork?
Probably listNetwork etc. > > What about specifying ip address when launching VMs by an admin? Well, I didn't aware the existence of this parameter... I found another iptonetworklist(map type) parameter in DeployVMCmd, I would say we won't support it right now, and see if we can do it after phase 1. Would document it in the FS. > > Is the systemvm in question only the dhcp system vm? Cpvm and ssvm are not > included in this as well right? CPVM and SSVM involved the public ip range created from createVlanAndIpRange, untouched for now. > > 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. We just want to make thing as simple as possible for the phase 1. The service other than DNS/DHCP would be supported later, and depends on how much time we have. > > All of the questions you answered wrt external devices etc should be in the > spec. I just assume we didn't support what we didn't say... Would add to FS anyway. --Sheng > > --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
