OK. Please include the bullet points from the "ipv6 in vpc" email I sent out. I changed the subject line. On Jan 7, 2014 7:06 AM, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Marcus, > > I am trying to hold your fs against network admins at Schuberg Philis > to see if I have some additions to make. Will let you know (through > the cwiki or here) once I got more. > > regards, > Daan > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I've put together a rough draft spec: > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/IPv6+in+VPC+Router > > > > I basically just laid out some rough ideas. I know there has been a > > lot of discussion in the past about DHCPv6, etc. My hope is that we > > can at least decide on a spec, for future reference. > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> It's been a long time since I've heard anything in regards to IPv6, > >> let alone VPC support. Does anyone have plans for this at all? We'd > >> like to support IPv6, and we have enough CS knowledge and external > >> tools to hack something together, but I'd much prefer to build with > >> the community and/or be forward compatible with what it deploys. > >> > >> I'd like to start with something simple, like perhaps optionally > >> providing a /64 or larger as a parameter when creating a VPC (or a > >> separate call to add an IPV6 block), and network on the vpc. Then it > >> sounds like there's already a mechanism in place for tracking ipv6 > >> assignments to nics, that could be leveraged to pass dhcp assignments > >> to routers. > >> > >> Then there's the whole acl thing, that seems like at least as big of a > >> project as mentioned previously. > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> has there been any further discussion that I might have missed around > >>> ipv6 in VPC? > >>> > >>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > >>>> Hi Dave, > >>>> > >>>> I am glad it fits your need. That's our target. :) > >>>> > >>>> --Sheng > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Dave Cahill <dcah...@midokura.com> > wrote: > >>>>> Hi Sheng, > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for the quick reply, that helps a lot. > >>>>> > >>>>> My main purpose was to figure out how these changes affect virtual > >>>>> networking and pluggability. Having read through the IPv6 code today, > >>>>> it looks like it will work very nicely with virtual networks. > >>>>> > >>>>> For example, when VMs are assigned an IPv6 address, the IPv6 address > >>>>> is stored in the NicProfile object. So, taking DHCP as an example, if > >>>>> the MidoNet plugin implements the DHCPServiceProvider interface, it > >>>>> will receive the NicProfile as one of the parameters of addDhcpEntry. > >>>>> If we want to implement IPv6, we can then take the IPv6 address from > >>>>> the NicProfile, and just use it as needed. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks again for taking the time to respond, and for the detailed FS. > >>>>> > >>>>> Dave. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Dave Cahill <dcah...@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 > >>>>>> >
