Will, Typo. “application model” was meant to be “appliance model”.
Thanks, -John > john.burw...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue On Sep 12, 2016, at 4:35 PM, John Burwell <john.burw...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > > Will, > > I agree that we need to replace the VR, but I am not convinced that > continuing with the notion of a monolithic application model is a best > direction. The problem with the current model is that it lacks flexibility. > Some users only need to deploy DHCP and DNS across a zone where others need a > much wider range of services at the pod or cluster level. With the > monolithic appliance, we are forced to build to the lowest common denominator. > > I would like to see the VR’s functions disambiguated likely into containers > (Zones/LXC-style rather than requiring the Docker/rkt runtime). With this > subdivision, we could then adopt the service chain model and allow users to > compose networks services to better fit their use cases. > > My thinking is that if we are going to through the (continuing) pain of > another VR replacement, we should take the opportunity to re-evaluate the > entire model. > > Thanks, > -John > >> > john.burw...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK > @shapeblue > > > > On Sep 12, 2016, at 4:20 PM, Will Stevens <williamstev...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> *Disclaimer:* This is a thought experiment and should be treated as such. >> Please weigh in with the good and bad of this idea... >> >> A couple of us have been discussing the idea of potentially replacing the >> ACS VR with the VyOS [1] (Open Source Vyatta VM). There may be a license >> issue because I think it is licensed under GPL, but for the sake of >> discussion, let's assume we can overcome any license issues. >> >> I have spent some time recently with the VyOS and I have to admit, I was >> pretty impressed. It is simple and intuitive and it gives you a lot more >> options for auditing the configuration etc... >> >> Items of potential interest: >> - Clean up our current VR script spaghetti to a simpler more auditable >> configuration workflow. >> - Gives a cleaner path for IPv6 support. >> - Handles VPN configuration via the same configuration interface. >> - Support for OSPF & BGP. >> - VPN support through OpenVPN & StrongSwan. >> - Easily supports HA (redundant routers) through VRRP. >> - VXLAN support. >> - Transaction based changes to the VR with rollback on error. >> >> Items that could be difficult to solve: >> - Userdata password reset workflow and implementation. >> - Upgrade process. >> >> The VyOS is not the only option if we were to consider this approach. >> Another option, which I don't know as well, would be CloudRouter (AGPL >> license) [2] which is purely API driven. >> >> Anyway, would love to hear your thoughts... >> >> Will >> >> [1] https://vyos.io/ >> [2] https://cloudrouter.org/ >
