Have we thought of other SDx routers such as pfsense? Its licensed under the BSD license and is well maintained.
-----Original Message----- From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Will Stevens Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 6:16 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR You have probably looked into this more than I have Rene. I am not sure there existed a time when the VR was ever "great". In my eyes, the core ACS dev team should not be building and managing its own VR. I feel like that is a liability because the subset of developers who are proficient in networking is quite small. That means we could be at risk of losing the majority of our "experts" with a few people changing their $dayjob. It feels safer to work with an existing technology which has its own development community focused on doing that piece well. Obviously this has its own drawbacks, but in general, we need the VR implementation to be built by dedicated network engineers and not jack of all trade developers. No offense to current company... I agree with your list of what you would like to see. Rock solid and not over complicated is key. That being said, if it ONLY handles what ACS needs today, then WE have to be the ones to develop any changes. For example; we need IPv6, VXLAN support, etc... My point is that if we only focus on what we need today, then we end up building everything we need for the future and I think we end up back where we are now down the road... I love everything you are saying, just not sure I want us building and maintaining it all... *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Rene Moser <m...@renemoser.net> wrote: > Hi > > On 09/12/2016 10:20 PM, Will Stevens 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. > > VyOS is Debian based, much like the current VR. As long as it is not > shipped with CloudStack, all fine. > > > 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... > > I had the same "crazy" thoughts when I heard about VyOS the first time. > > When I looked at VyOS, the release cycle were not very frequent and > the current stable release is still based on Debian 6 (EOL [1] since > 02.16) > > However to me, it doesn't matter if it's VyOS or CloudLinux, or > another solution. > > The question is more like what is wrong with the current VR and how > can we make the VR great again. Things I would like to see: > > - VR must have a "clean", programmable, documented, API, supporting > batch processing. > - VR must be rock solid (minimal shell) state of the art, up to date, > but small (Only contain things CloudStack needs, not more) > - VR must be scale well (...) and support stateful HA > - VR must be easy to upgrade (security) without downtimes. > > Christmas is soon... ;) > > René > > [1] https://www.debian.org/News/2016/20160212 > >
