Thank you for the feedback Matthew. The Debian 6 EOL thing is something that VyOS has taken very seriously. Everything has been ported to Debian 8 now, but it is still in beta and is not considered 'stable' yet because they have not been able to regression test the entire feature set yet. In talking to them on Friday, the Debian 8 version should be the stable release within the next 6 months.
Our team discussed some of the implementation details regarding VyOS this morning and Syed had some really good ideas. I will see if I can get him to post his ideas to the list. Cheers, *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Matthew Smart <msm...@smartsoftwareinc.com > wrote: > We have been using Vyatta (and then Vyos) after the fork for all of our > production routers for over four years now. It is rock solid and performs > better than the Juniper routers we replaced them with. It is debian based > underneath its custom shell whose syntax is very much like Juniper. A sudo > su gets you a standard bash shell just like in any other debian distro and > I have installed additional packages in the past. It is really easy to > configure in that the entire router config is held in a single file with a > dead simple file structure. You can use the commands in their custom shell > to alter the config but I prefer to just upload a mod to that file... I > know, I like to live dangerously! lol. Seriously though, they do have > versioning/rollback capability but last I checked a rollback forced a > reboot of the router. > > The major downside, and one we are struggling with now is that it is > running an EOL version of debian and that is a HUGE liability for something > as security critical as an edge router. They have a lot of work ahead of > them to get out 2.0 but aside from the EOL Debian, Vyos "just works" and > out of the box would exceed the current VR in pretty much every way. > Personally, I find the API issue to be less important. #1 priority has to > be getting a VR that functions at an enterprise level. API integration is > important but pales compared to that. > > Conversely, we are still not in production with Cloudstack specifically > because of the current state of the VR. IOW, the current VR implementation > is directly affecting Cloudstack adoption at least anecdotally. > > My team is very new to contributing to CS and our time is limited but, > given my many years of experience administering networks with Vyos at the > core, if you go that route I will gladly lend my knowledge in helping you > map out an implementation. > > I have evaluated Cloud Router in the past and found it lacking in basic > features (and especially documentation) that made it a no go for even a > test build. It is promising and I hope it continues to mature but Vyos is a > battle hardened and proven technology. Given the option, I always go with > the known good solution over the shiny one. > > I have also used PFsense. Really great project but I have not found it to > be as stable for me as Vyos, though that might be my lack of BSD experience. > > Thanks, > > > Matthew Smart > President > Smart Software Solutions Inc. > 108 S Pierre St. > Pierre, SD 57501 > > Phone: (605) 280-0383 > Skype: msmart13 > Email: msm...@smartsoftwareinc.com > > On 09/18/2016 11:09 AM, Will Stevens wrote: > >> At this point in the discussion, I don't think we should rule anything >> out. >> I think it makes sense to explore all the options and then isolate some >> front runners in terms of software and architecture. >> >> On Sep 18, 2016 1:08 AM, "ilya" <ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Our options become much better if we consider BSD based routers. >>> >>> Would that be on the table? >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_router_and_firewall_distributions >>> >>> >>> On 9/16/16 12:04 PM, Will Stevens wrote: >>> >>>> Ya, your points are all valid Simon. The lack of standard libraries to >>>> handle a lot of the details is a problem. I don't think it is an >>>> unsolvable problem, but if we spend the time to do that, will we have >>>> something that will work for us for the next 5 years? This may be the >>>> shortest path to getting us where we need to be for the time being. >>>> >>>> What is the best case scenario for the VR going forward which will last >>>> >>> us >>> >>>> the next 5 years? Maybe we just clean up what we have to do a major >>>> restructuring of the pieces and how they are implemented. We need to >>>> >>> keep >>> >>>> in mind how maintainable this implementation is because that is going to >>>> >>> be >>> >>>> key going forward IMO. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Will STEVENS* >>>> Lead Developer >>>> >>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts >>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 >>>> w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Simon Weller <swel...@ena.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I think our other option is to take a real look at what it would take to >>>>> fix the VR. In my opinion, a lot of the problems are related to the >>>>> monolithic python code base and the fact nothing is actually separated. >>>>> >>>>> Secondly, the python scripts (and bash scripts) don't use any >>>>> >>>> established >>> >>>> libraries to complete tasks and instead shell out and run commands that >>>>> >>>> are >>> >>>> both hard to track and hard to parse on return. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If we daemonized this, used a real api for Agent to VR communication, >>>>> >>>> used >>> >>>> common already existing libraries for the system service and network >>>>> interactions and spent a bit of time separating out code into distinct >>>>> modules, everything would behave a lot better. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The pain and suffering is due to years and years of patches and >>>>> constant >>>>> shelling out to complete tasks in my opinion. If we spend time to >>>>> >>>> rethink >>> >>>> how we interact with the VR in general and we abstract the systems and >>>>> networking stuff and use well known and stable libraries to do the >>>>> work, >>>>> the VR would be much easier to maintain. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Si >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: Marty Godsey <ma...@gonsource.com> >>>>> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 12:24 PM >>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR >>>>> >>>>> So based upon this discussion would it be prudent to wait on VyOS 2.0? >>>>> >>>> The >>> >>>> current VR is giving us issues but would the time invested in another >>>>> "solution" be wasted especially if by the time another option is chose, >>>>> then coded, then tested, then implemented and right as that time >>>>> >>>> happened >>> >>>> to be when VyOS 2.0 is released. Of course you said they are just in >>>>> >>>> the >>> >>>> scoping range so this could still be a year or more out. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Marty Godsey >>>>> nSource Solutions >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On >>>>> Behalf Of Will Stevens >>>>> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 10:31 AM >>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>> Cc: dan...@baturin.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR >>>>> >>>>> I just had a quick chat with a couple of the guys over on the VyOS >>>>> chat. >>>>> I have CC'ed one of them in case we have more licensing questions. >>>>> >>>>> So here is the status with the license "the code inherited from Vyatta >>>>> >>>> and >>> >>>> our modifications from it is GPLv2 (strict, not v2+). The config reading >>>>> library is GPLv2 too, so anything that links to is is GPLv2. >>>>> Some auxiliary components we made after the fork are more permissive, >>>>> LGPLv2+ or MIT." >>>>> >>>>> They are currently in the process of scoping a redesign (VyOS 2.0), "we >>>>> are planning a clean rewrite that will solve issues of the current >>>>> >>>> config >>> >>>> system". >>>>> This will include the ability to configure via the API. >>>>> >>>>> If we have more questions for VyOS, they are very friendly and >>>>> >>>> responsive, >>> >>>> so we should be able to get answers. >>>>> >>>>> *Will STEVENS* >>>>> Lead Developer >>>>> >>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts >>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw >>>>> @CloudOps_ >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Syed Ahmed <sah...@cloudops.com> >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> I agree with Will Ilya. There are so many problems with the VR right >>>>>> >>>>> now. >>> >>>> Most of the outages we've had recently have somehow involved the VR. >>>>>> We set custom iptables rules on the VR which can and have easily gone >>>>>> >>>>> wrong. >>>>> >>>>>> Openswan is broken, Strongswan replacement still needs to be tested. >>>>>> VVRP with redundant router still needs work, and not to mention the >>>>>> problems we will have when we introduce IPv6 into the whole picture. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the spirit of the discussion is to rely on a 3rd party to do >>>>>> the networking for us (eg VyOS) and have us handle just the >>>>>> orchestration. All the problems that I've described have already been >>>>>> solved in VyOS. We also get the advantage of a potential wider >>>>>> community to fix and maintain the VR and given our current development >>>>>> velocity, it think it totally makes sense to look for a 3rd party >>>>>> >>>>> option. >>> >>>> -Syed >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The VR has been biting us far too often recently, which is why we >>>>>>> have started looking into alternative implementations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One of the things that is nice about potentially using the VyOS is >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> >>>>>> it >>>>>> >>>>>>> is based on Debian, so we should be able to run the other services >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> >>>>>> we >>>>>> >>>>>>> currently have like the password server and userdata on the VyOS. >>>>>>> This means we would not have to change our architecture initially >>>>>>> and could focus on only replacing the networking paths. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Will STEVENS* >>>>>>> Lead Developer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts >>>>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* >>>>>>> tw @CloudOps_ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The more this is discussed the more I think we should stick with >>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> VR. >>>>>> >>>>>>> All these other options either seem unfinished or with >>>>>>>> incompatible license. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> VyOS looks the most promising so far, it's a serious, mature >>>>>>>> project. >>>>>>>> Adopting it though means we'll have to microservice our way out of >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> extra machines for DNS/USERDATA/etc, unless we can make VyOS serve >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> those >>>>>> >>>>>>> too. Imho this adds complexity we should void. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nux! >>>>>>>> www.nux.ro >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: "Will Stevens" <wstev...@cloudops.com> >>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 15 September, 2016 17:21:28 >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR >>>>>>>>> Ya, we would need to add a daemon for VPN as well. Load >>>>>>>>> balancing is another aspect which we will need to consider if we >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> went this route. >>>>> >>>>>> Something like https://traefik.io/ could potentially be a good >>>>>>>>> fit >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> due >>>>>> >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> its API driven configuration, but it may be more than what we need. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We should probably try define which pieces make sense to be >>>>>>>>> solved >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> together >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and which pieces would be best suited to be broken out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think the network connectivity, routing and firewalling should >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> probably >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> all stay together since the majority of the tools we would >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> potentially >>>>>> >>>>>>> use >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> would handle all of that together in a single implementation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The password server and userdata seems like a good option for >>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> broken >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> out and handled independently (and probably rewritten completely >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> since >>>>>> >>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> currently have some issues). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Load balancing is another that could warrant splitting out, but >>>>>>>>> that depends on what direction we go and how we would be managing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> it. >>>>> >>>>>> DHCP >>>>>> >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> DNS are others which could go either way. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If we do split out services, I think we should consolidate as >>>>>>>>> much as >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> can into each service we break out. Ideally a network packet >>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> never >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> hit more than one, maybe two, services. I don't think we should >>>>>>>>> be splitting services 'just because', I think we need a valid >>>>>>>>> case for splitting any service out because it adds complexity. >>>>>>>>> Our project is already complex enough, we need to avoid adding >>>>>>>>> complexity unless it >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is >>>>>> >>>>>>> really needed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some more of my thoughts on this anyway... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Will STEVENS* >>>>>>>>> Lead Developer >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts >>>>>>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com >>>>>>>>> *|* tw @CloudOps_ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Simon Weller <swel...@ena.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do agree with you that this probably isn't the right place >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> password >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> service and user data. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Having said that, after taking a cursory look at the dev docs, >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> seem that difficult to add new daemons: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://opensnaproute.github. >>>>>> >>>>>>> io/docs/developer.html#creating-new-component >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <https://opensnaproute.github.io/docs/developer.html# >>>>>>>>>> creating-new-component> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> They've definitely build it with a microservices architecture >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mind, >>>>>> >>>>>>> so >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> each individual feature is abstracted into it's own small >>>>>>>>>> daemon >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> process. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We could just create a daemon for the password server and the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> userdata >>>>>> >>>>>>> components if we really had to. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Si >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> From: williamstev...@gmail.com <williamstev...@gmail.com> on >>>>>>>>>> behalf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:17 AM >>>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A big part of why I know about it is because it is written in Go. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> :P >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, it is definitely interesting for the routing and traffic >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> handling >>>>>> >>>>>>> aspects of the VR. We will likely have to rethink some of the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> pieces >>>>>> >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> little bit like the password server and userdata if we are to >>>>>>>>>> adopt >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>> >>>>>>> different VR approach. This is where I think some of JohnB and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Chiradeep's >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ideas make sense. In many ways, it does not make sense for the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> device >>>>>> >>>>>>> handling routing and network traffic to also be responsible for >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> passwords >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and userdata. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Will STEVENS* >>>>>>>>>> Lead Developer >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts >>>>>>>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com >>>>>>>>>> *|* tw @CloudOps_ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Simon Weller <swel...@ena.com> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I hadn't heard of Flexswitch until you mentioned it. It looks >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> pretty >>>>>> >>>>>>> cool! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It even supports ONIE install. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To be honest, the ipsec feature could be added, or we could >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> offload >>>>>> >>>>>>> it to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> separate vm if we needed to. The fact it is so feature rich >>>>>>>>>>> from a >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> routing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> perspective (and all API driven) is really nice. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Based on the roadmap, it looks like they plan to also support >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> capabilities >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> such as BGP-MPLS based L3VPN, EVPN, VPLS in the future. This >>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>> >>>>>>> huge >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> for our carrier community that rely on these technologies to >>>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> private >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> gateway and inter-VPC interconnections today. We handle this >>>>>>>>>>> stuff >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ASRs right now with a vlan interconnect into the VR. Being >>>>>>>>>>> able to >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> MPLS >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> all the way to the VR would be awesome. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It also seems to be written in GO (a language here at ENA we >>>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> well). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - Si >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> From: Will Stevens <williamstev...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 7:06 AM >>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ya. I don't think it covers our whole use case, but what it >>>>>>>>>>> does >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> cover is >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> all api driven... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 15, 2016 1:48 AM, "Marty Godsey" <ma...@gonsource.com> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Though I don’t see VPN in Snaproute.. Makes sense since it >>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>> >>>>>>> intended to do IPSec. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It seems as though VyOS is starting to look like the best >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> option. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Marty Godsey >>>>>>>>>>>> nSource Solutions >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>> From: williamstev...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ] >>>>>> >>>>>>> On >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Behalf Of Will Stevens >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 11:06 PM >>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Or we could go completely crazy and go with something like >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> FlexSwitch >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> SnapRoute >>>>>>>>>>>> - http://www.snaproute.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>> - https://opensnaproute.github.io/docs/apis.html >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Will STEVENS* >>>>>>>>>>>> Lead Developer >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts >>>>>>>>>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w >>>>>>>>>>>> cloudops.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *|* >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> tw >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @CloudOps_ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Will Stevens < >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wstev...@cloudops.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I tend to agree with Syed and Marty. I am not sure what >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> problems >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> solved by splitting up the function of the VR into a >>>>>>>>>>>>> bunch of >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> separate >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> services. As Syed points out, the complexity added is >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We now have to manage all the intercontainer networking >>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> well >>>>>> >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> orchestrated ACS networking. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> VyOS is interesting to me because it covers the majority >>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> our >>>>>> >>>>>>> use >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> case with a single unified control plane. It also has >>>>>>>>>>>>> good >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> for extending features we care about, like IPv6, VXLAN, >>>>>>>>>>>>> VRRP, transactions, etc... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Will STEVENS* >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lead Developer >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts >>>>>>>>>>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> cloudops.com >>>>>> >>>>>>> *|* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> tw >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> @CloudOps_ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Syed Ahmed < >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> sah...@cloudops.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Agree with Marty, adding Docker containers to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> although >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> can make the VR more flexible but the added complexity >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>> >>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> worth it. Not to mention we would need to take care of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> networking >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> each container manually and given that our iptable rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> unstable at the moment I don't see a big value add. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vyos looks like a better solution to me. I know that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> provide an api but it does fit the bill quite well >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise. I >>>>>> >>>>>>> specially like the fact that it has a transaction based >>>>>>>>>>>>>> model >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> can rollback changes if something goes wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:06 PM Marty Godsey < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ma...@gonsource.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Licensing aside, I think splitting the various >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>> >>>>>>> containers is not a good route either. This will force >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> users >>>>>> >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> have to maintain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use containers and adds complexity to the networking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects >>>>>> >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ACS. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Complexity decreases stability. Now I understand the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument >>>>>> >>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a monolithic approach also brings its own set of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> simplifies it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty Godsey >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nSource Solutions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chirade...@gmail.com] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 5:37 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I rather doubt that the Cloudrouter will fit the needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>>> CloudStack project >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - it is AGPL licensed. Many enterprises will not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> touch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AGPL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - the github repo shows rather infrequent updates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> they aren't considering the use cases of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CloudStack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd back John B's comments on disaggregating the VR. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Split >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>> >>>>>>> into >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> many docker containers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - password server >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - userdata server >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - DHCP / DNS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - s2s VPN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - RA VPN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - intra-VPC routing and ACL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Port forwarding + NAT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - FW >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - LB (public) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - LB (internal), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - secondary storage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - agent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glue them together with docker compose files (one per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> case - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> basic zone, isolated, VPC, SSVM, etc). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VR image then becomes a JeOS + docker. You can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> each >>>>>> >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> components independently and fixing one bug in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (say >>>>>> >>>>>>> DHCP) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> is hitless to the other components. You don't need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build per-hypervisor VRs. You could even run on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> baremetal. >>>>> >>>>>> Along the way you need to figure out how to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - make the traffic traverse the containers that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> traversed (in most cases just 1) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - bootstrap the router (how does it find its compose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> file? >>>>> >>>>>> where >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> registry?) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - rethink the command and control of the VR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions. SSH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> works, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but something more declarative, idempotent should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> explored. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As you do this, it becomes clearer which of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>> >>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> substituted by for example CloudRouter. Command and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> docker >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers can be moved out to another container. Etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Marty Godsey >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ma...@gonsource.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This one does look nice. My biggest concern is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>>> VXLANs. It seems that any of the ones we mentioned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> API so we may be stuck at the SSH method. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty Godsey >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nSource Solutions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:abhinandan.prat...@shapeblue.com] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 2:26 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cloudrouter looks promising. These have potential to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> save >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> engineering effort for example on ipv6 routing, OSPF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>> >>>>>> And the best part is they come with test automation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/09/16, 4:22 PM, "Jayapal Uradi" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jayapal.ur...@accelerite.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of replacing the VR in first place we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should add VyOS/cloudrouter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as provider. Once it is stable, network offerings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> can be updated to use it and we can drop the VR if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want >>>>>> >>>>>>> at >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onwards. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VR is stabilized over a period of time and some of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> running >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without issues. When we replicate the ACS VR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> solution it takes some to find the missing pieces >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (hidden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bugs). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jayapal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 13, 2016, at 2:52 PM, Nux! < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> n...@li.nux.ro> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the idea. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cloudrouter looks really promising, I'm not too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>> >>>>>>> VyOS >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't have a proper http api etc). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nux! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.nux.ro >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abhinandan.prat...@shapeblue.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @shapeblue >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Will Stevens" <williamstev...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, 12 September, 2016 21:20:11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
