Regards
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: Dietrich, Alex <adietr...@ussignal.com.INVALID>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 2:21 PM
To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org; dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Dynamic routing for routed mode IPv6 and IPv4 Isolated and VPC
networks
Hi Alex,
This may be a difference in perspective in implementation of BGP at the tenant
level. I see the ability this would provide to seamlessly establishing those
peering relationships with minimal intervention (helping scalability).
I think adding the ability to add network specific peers as mentioned in one of
your prior replies would still allow the level of control some operators
(myself included) may desire.
Thanks,
Alex
[photo]<http://www.ussignal.com/>
Alex Dietrich
Senior Network Engineer, US Signal
616-233-5094<tel:616-233-5094> | www.ussignal.com<https://www.ussignal.com> |
adietr...@ussignal.com<mailto:adietr...@ussignal.com>
201 Ionia Ave SW, Grand Rapids, MI
49503<https://maps.google.com/?q=201%20Ionia%20Ave%20SW,%20Grand%20Rapids,%20MI%2049503>
[linkedin]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/us-signal/>
[facebook]<https://www.facebook.com/ussignalcom/>
[youtube]<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaFBGFfXmHziWGTFqjGzaWw>
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email are confidential. Information is intended
for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake,
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone
or make copies thereof.
[__tpx__]
From: Alex Mattioli <alex.matti...@shapeblue.com>
Date: Monday, May 20, 2024 at 7:51 AM
To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>,
dev@cloudstack.apache.org <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Dynamic routing for routed mode IPv6 and IPv4 Isolated and VPC
networks EXTERNAL
Hi Alex,
I am not convinced that specifying BGP peers at the zone level is a good idea
given the impacts BGP can have on a given network. I would much rather see both
peer and AS specification handled at the >network configuration, or another
more specific level.
I don't see how else end users would be able to automatically create routed
networks without intervention from the operator.
Cheers
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: Dietrich, Alex <adietr...@ussignal.com.INVALID>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 2:23 PM
To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org; dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Dynamic routing for routed mode IPv6 and IPv4 Isolated and VPC
networks
Hello Alex,
I appreciate this back and forth as I am excited about the potential this
feature would hold.
* This is a very valid point. We could add network specific BGP peers as
well, which would override the automatic AS allocation, in the same way that we
now allocate DNS servers in the zone level but can override that by manually
selecting different DNS servers at network creation time. Would that address
your point?
Why does the network specific BGP peers need to override automatic AS
allocation? In my mind there isn’t a dependency that needs to exist to those
two as they are somewhat independent of one another.
I am not convinced that specifying BGP peers at the zone level is a good idea
given the impacts BGP can have on a given network. I would much rather see both
peer and AS specification handled at the network configuration, or another more
specific level.
Thanks,
Alex
From: Alex Mattioli <alex.matti...@shapeblue.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 at 10:15 AM
To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>,
dev@cloudstack.apache.org <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Dynamic routing for routed mode IPv6 and IPv4 Isolated and VPC
networks EXTERNAL
Hi Alex,
Would zone-level BGP peers be those used by default for establishing new BGP
peers in networks where dynamic routing is enabled?
Correct, so far we plan to allow for up to 4 BGP peers for a zone, with the
possibility to setup different metrics to each peer.
This could affect a multi-tenant model where there may be different BGP peers
presented based on what the upstream network provides. An example of >this
would be where the VLANs associated to a given account are associated to distinct
VRFs and may have different peering IP addresses.
I would like to see the peering IP addresses specific to the networks where
dynamic routing is enabled instead of specifying defaults at the zone level.
This is a very valid point. We could add network specific BGP peers as well,
which would override the automatic AS allocation, in the same way that we now
allocate DNS servers in the zone level but can override that by manually
selecting different DNS servers at network creation time. Would that address
your point?
Cheers,
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: Dietrich, Alex <adietr...@ussignal.com.INVALID>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 2:34 PM
To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org; dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Dynamic routing for routed mode IPv6 and IPv4 Isolated and VPC
networks
Hi Alex,
I appreciate the clarity!
Excuse my ignorance if I am misunderstanding the intention of specifying BGP
peers at the zone level.
Would zone-level BGP peers be those used by default for establishing new BGP
peers in networks where dynamic routing is enabled?
This could affect a multi-tenant model where there may be different BGP peers
presented based on what the upstream network provides. An example of this would
be where the VLANs associated to a given account are associated to distinct
VRFs and may have different peering IP addresses.
I would like to see the peering IP addresses specific to the networks where
dynamic routing is enabled instead of specifying defaults at the zone level.
* Alex
[__tpx__]
From: Alex Mattioli <alex.matti...@shapeblue.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 at 9:27 AM
To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>,
dev@cloudstack.apache.org <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Dynamic routing for routed mode IPv6 and IPv4 Isolated and VPC
networks EXTERNAL
Hi Alex,
Answers inline below with >
Cheers
-----Original Message-----
From: Dietrich, Alex <adietr...@ussignal.com.INVALID>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 3:12 PM
To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org; dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Dynamic routing for routed mode IPv6 and IPv4 Isolated and VPC
networks
Hello Alex,
I appreciate you taking on this initiative as I’d like to see similar
functionality made available in CloudStack.
I do have some feedback on your implementation approach:
1 - Operator configures one or more BGP peers for a given Zone (with different
metrics)
What is the intention behind specifying BGP peers at the zone level? I would
think this would need to be specific to the network that you want to enable BGP
on and does not need to concern the entire zone.
The goal is for the process to be drive by the end user without operator
intervention. In the current design we'd enable the VR to share routes with
upstream routers without any need for extra configuration on the part of the
operator.
Your point is very valid and it should definitely be a future enhancement on
the feature.
2 - Operator presents a pool of Private AS numbers to the Zone (just like we do
for VLANs)
As a private AS consumer, I agree that this approach would be helpful for a
more dynamic allocation as new dynamic routing enabled networks are created.
Glad we are in the same page there.
3 - When a network is created with an offering which has dynamic routing
enabled an AS number is allocated to the network
4 - ACS configures the BGP session on the VR (using FRR), advertising all its
connected networks
Given there is a lot of extensibility within BGP, I would think there would
need to be some level of customizability to the peering configurations. Is the
intention to consider adding additional knobs, or relegating that to the
upstream BGP peer? I could see scenarios where you would at least want to have
control over prefix lengths, etc.
Absolutely, but I think this should be a future enhancement, the current goal is
to have a very simple and basic dynamic BGP implementation working, after that's
out there and in use then we definitely should discuss how to enhance the
>feature with exactly what you pointed out.
Thanks,
Alex Dietrich
[__tpx__]
From: Alex Mattioli <alex.matti...@shapeblue.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 at 8:55 AM
To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>,
dev@cloudstack.apache.org <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Dynamic routing for routed mode IPv6 and IPv4 Isolated and VPC
networks EXTERNAL
Hi all,
Does anyone have an opinion on the implementation of dynamic routing in
Isolated networks and VPCs?
So far the design is:
1 - Operator configures one or more BGP peers for a given Zone (with different
metrics)
2 - Operator presents a pool of Private AS numbers to the Zone (just like we do
for VLANs)
3 - When a network is created with an offering which has dynamic routing
enabled an AS number is allocated to the network
4 - ACS configures the BGP session on the VR (using FRR), advertising all its
connected networks
Any and all input will be very welcome.
Cheers,
Alex
From: Alex Mattioli
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 3:25 AM
To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org; dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Dynamic routing for routed mode IPv6 and IPv4 Isolated and VPC networks
Hi all,
I'd like to brainstorm dynamic routing in ACS (yes, again... for the newcomers
to this mailing list - this has been discussed multiple times in the past 10+
years)
ACS 4.17 has introduced routed mode for IPv6 in Isolated networks and VPCs, we are currently working on
extending that to IPv4 as well, which will support the current NAT'ed mode and also a routed mode
(inspired by the NSX integration
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ao-vv7Ahk__;!!P9cq_d3Gyw!gRe7Js-1plXE8vRRc_mJQIri5T4-Z1zOFVmqEwmHGE_AGkN6P6BU5T8nq0WL4Fx0MTwP0p-ucEL6DjwFzB7TaoBNnS4$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ao-vv7Ahk__;!!P9cq_d3Gyw!gRe7Js-1plXE8vRRc_mJQIri5T4-Z1zOFVmqEwmHGE_AGkN6P6BU5T8nq0WL4Fx0MTwP0p-ucEL6DjwFzB7TaoBNnS4$><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ao-vv7Ahk__;!!P9cq_d3Gyw!gRe7Js-1plXE8vRRc_mJQIri5T4-Z1zOFVmqEwmHGE_AGkN6P6BU5T8nq0WL4Fx0MTwP0p-ucEL6DjwFzB7TaoBNnS4$%3chttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ao-vv7Ahk__;!!P9cq_d3Gyw!gRe7Js-1plXE8vRRc_mJQIri5T4-Z1zOFVmqEwmHGE_AGkN6P6BU5T8nq0WL4Fx0MTwP0p-ucEL6DjwFzB7TaoBNnS4$%3e><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ao-vv7Ahk__;!!P9cq_d3Gyw!gRe7Js-1plXE8vRRc_mJQIri5T4-Z1zOFVmqEwmHGE_AGkN6P6BU5T8nq0WL4Fx0MTwP0p-ucEL6DjwFzB7TaoBNnS4$%3chttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ao-vv7Ahk__;!!P9cq_d3Gyw!gRe7Js-1plXE8vRRc_mJQIri5T4-Z1zOFVmqEwmHGE_AGkN6P6BU5T8nq0WL4Fx0MTwP0p-ucEL6DjwFzB7TaoBNnS4$%3e%3chttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ao-vv7Ahk__;!!P9cq_d3Gyw!gRe7Js-1plXE8vRRc_mJQIri5T4-Z1zOFVmqEwmHGE_AGkN6P6BU5T8nq0WL4Fx0MTwP0p-ucEL6DjwFzB7TaoBNnS4$%3chttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ao-vv7Ahk__;!!P9cq_d3Gyw!gRe7Js-1plXE8vRRc_mJQIri5T4-Z1zOFVmqEwmHGE_AGkN6P6BU5T8nq0WL4Fx0MTwP0p-ucEL6DjwFzB7TaoBNnS4$%3e%3e><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ao-vv7Ahk__;!!P9cq_d3Gyw!gRe7Js-1plXE8vRRc_mJQIri5T4-Z1zOFVmqEwmHGE_AGkN6P6BU5T8nq0WL4Fx0MTwP0p-ucEL6DjwFzB7TaoBNnS4$%3chttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ao-vv7Ahk__;!!P9cq_d3Gyw!gRe7Js-1plXE8vRRc_mJQIri5T4-Z1zOFVmqEwmHGE_AGkN6P6BU5T8nq0WL4Fx0MTwP0p-ucEL6DjwFzB7TaoBNnS4$%3e%3chttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ao-vv7Ahk__;!!P9cq_d3Gyw!gRe7Js-1plXE8vRRc_mJQIri5T4-Z1zOFVmqEwmHGE_AGkN6P6BU5T8nq0WL4Fx0MTwP0p-ucEL6DjwFzB7TaoBNnS4$%3chttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ao-vv7Ahk__;!!P9cq_d3Gyw!gRe7Js-1plXE8vRRc_mJQIri5T4-Z1zOFVmqEwmHGE_AGkN6P6BU5T8nq0WL4Fx0MTwP0p-ucEL6DjwFzB7TaoBNnS4$%3e%3e%3chttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ao-vv7Ahk__;!!P9cq_d3Gyw!gRe7Js-1plXE8vRRc_mJQIri5T4-Z1zOFVmqEwmHGE_AGkN6P6BU5T8nq0WL4Fx0MTwP0p-ucEL6DjwFzB7TaoBNnS4$%3chttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ao-vv7Ahk__;!!P9cq_d3Gyw!gRe7Js-1plXE8vRRc_mJQIri5T4-Z1zOFVmqEwmHGE_AGkN6P6BU5T8nq0WL4Fx0MTwP0p-ucEL6DjwFzB7TaoBNnS4$%3e%3chttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ao-vv7Ahk__;!!P9cq_d3Gyw!gRe7Js-1plXE8vRRc_mJQIri5T4-Z1zOFVmqEwmHGE_AGkN6P6BU5T8nq0WL4Fx0MTwP0p-ucEL6DjwFzB7TaoBNnS4$%3chttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ao-vv7Ahk__;!!P9cq_d3Gyw!gRe7Js-1plXE8vRRc_mJQIri5T4-Z1zOFVmqEwmHGE_AGkN6P6BU5T8nq0WL4Fx0MTwP0p-ucEL6DjwFzB7TaoBNnS4$%3e%3e%3e>
).
With stock ACS (i.e. without NSX or OpenSDN) this routing is purely static, with the
operator being responsible to add static routes to the Isolated network or VPC tiers via
the "public" (outside) IP of the virtual router.
The next step on this journey is to add some kind of dynamic routing. One way
that I have in mind is using dynamic BGP:
1 - Operator configures one or more BGP peers for a given Zone (with different
metrics)
2 - Operator presents a pool of Private AS numbers to the Zone (just like we do
for VLANs)
3 - When a network is created with an offering which has dynamic routing
enabled an AS number is allocated
4 - ACS configures the BGP session on the VR, advertising all its connected
networks
This way there's no need to reconfigure the upstream router for each new ACS
network (it just needs to allow dynamic BGP peering from the pool of AS numbers
presented to the zone)
This implementation could also be used for Shared Networks, in which case the
destination advertised via BGP is to the gateway of the shared network.
There could also be an offering where we allow for end users to setup the BGP
parameters for their Isolated or VPC networks, which can then peer with
upstream VNF(s).
Any and all input is very welcome...
Taking the liberty to tag some of you: @Wei Zhou<mailto:wei.z...@shapeblue.com> @Wido den
Hollander<mailto:w...@widodh.nl> @Kristaps Čudars<mailto:kristaps.cud...@telia.lv>
Cheers,
Alex
