Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Privacy extension

2014-05-20 Thread Shixiong Shang
Awesome! Seems like we reached agreement for not covering privacy extension at 
this moment. I am totally fine with that. To put closure on this subject, do 
you think we need to document it and provide user with work-around in case 
somebody asks for it in Juno release?

Shixiong




On May 16, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Robert Li (baoli) ba...@cisco.com wrote:

 Dane put some notes on the session??s ether pad  to support multiple 
 prefixes. Seem like this is really something that everyone want to support in 
 openstack.
 
 ??Robert
 
 On 5/16/14, 2:23 PM, Martinx - ?` thiagocmarti...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Precisely Anthony! We talked about this topic (Non-NAT Floating IPv6) 
 here, on the following thread:
 
 --
 [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Idea: Floating IPv6 - Without any kind of 
 NAT:
 http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-February/026871.html
 --
 
 :-D
 
 About IPv6 Privacy Extensions, well, if it is too hard to implement, I think 
 that it can be postponed... And only the IPv6 self-generated by SLAAC and 
 previously calculated by Neutron itself (based on Instance's MAC address), 
 should be allowed to pass/work for now...
 
 -
  Thiago
 
 
 On 16 May 2014 12:12, Veiga, Anthony anthony_ve...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
 I??ll take this one a step further.  I think one of the methods for getting 
 (non-NAT) floating IPs in IPv6 would be to push a new, extra address to the 
 same port.  Either by crafting an extra, unicast RA to the specific VM or 
 providing multiple IA_NA fields in the DHCPv6 transaction.  This would 
 require multiple addresses to be allowed on a single MAC.
 -Anthony
 
 From: Martinx - ?` thiagocmarti...@gmail.com
 Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
 openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 Date: Thursday, May 15, 2014 at 14:18 
 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
 openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Privacy extension
 
 Hello!
 
 I agree that there is no need for Privacy Extensions in a Cloud 
 environment, since MAC address are fake... No big deal...
 
 Nevertheless, I think that should be nice to allow 1 Instance to have more 
 than 1 IPv6 addr, since IPv6 is (almost) virtually unlimited... This way, 
 a VM with, for example, a range of IPv6s to it, can have a shared host 
 environment when each website have its own IPv6 address (I prefer to use 
 IP-Based virtualhosts on Apache, instead of Name-Based)...
 
 Cheers!
 Thiago
 
 
 On 15 May 2014 14:22, Ian Wells ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk wrote:
 I was just about to respond to that in the session when we ran out of 
 time.  I would vote for simply insisting that VMs run without the privacy 
 extension enabled, and only permitting the expected ipv6 address based on 
 MAC.  Its primary purpose is to conceal your MAC address so that your IP 
 address can't be used to track you, as I understand it, and I don't think 
 that's as relevant in a cloud environment and where the MAC addresses are 
 basically fake.  Someone interested in desktop virtualisation with 
 Openstack may wish to contradict me...
 -- 
 Ian.
 
 
 On 15 May 2014 09:30, Shixiong Shang sparkofwisdom.cl...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 Hi, guys:
 
 Nice to meet with all of you in the technical session and design 
 session. I mentioned the challenge of privacy extension in the meeting, 
 but would like to hear your opinions of how to address the problem. If 
 you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. I will create 
 a BP for this problem.
 
 Thanks!
 
 Shixiong
 
 
 Shixiong Shang
 
 !--- Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish ---!
 
 
 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
 
 
 
 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
 
 
 
 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
 
 
 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



Shixiong Shang

!--- Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish ---!

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Privacy extension

2014-05-16 Thread Veiga, Anthony
I’ll take this one a step further.  I think one of the methods for getting 
(non-NAT) floating IPs in IPv6 would be to push a new, extra address to the 
same port.  Either by crafting an extra, unicast RA to the specific VM or 
providing multiple IA_NA fields in the DHCPv6 transaction.  This would require 
multiple addresses to be allowed on a single MAC.
-Anthony

From: Martinx - ジェームズ 
thiagocmarti...@gmail.commailto:thiagocmarti...@gmail.com
Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: Thursday, May 15, 2014 at 14:18
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Privacy extension

Hello!

I agree that there is no need for Privacy Extensions in a Cloud environment, 
since MAC address are fake... No big deal...

Nevertheless, I think that should be nice to allow 1 Instance to have more than 
1 IPv6 addr, since IPv6 is (almost) virtually unlimited... This way, a VM with, 
for example, a range of IPv6s to it, can have a shared host environment when 
each website have its own IPv6 address (I prefer to use IP-Based virtualhosts 
on Apache, instead of Name-Based)...

Cheers!
Thiago


On 15 May 2014 14:22, Ian Wells 
ijw.ubu...@cack.org.ukmailto:ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk wrote:
I was just about to respond to that in the session when we ran out of time.  I 
would vote for simply insisting that VMs run without the privacy extension 
enabled, and only permitting the expected ipv6 address based on MAC.  Its 
primary purpose is to conceal your MAC address so that your IP address can't be 
used to track you, as I understand it, and I don't think that's as relevant in 
a cloud environment and where the MAC addresses are basically fake.  Someone 
interested in desktop virtualisation with Openstack may wish to contradict me...
--
Ian.


On 15 May 2014 09:30, Shixiong Shang 
sparkofwisdom.cl...@gmail.commailto:sparkofwisdom.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, guys:

Nice to meet with all of you in the technical session and design session. I 
mentioned the challenge of privacy extension in the meeting, but would like to 
hear your opinions of how to address the problem. If you have any comments or 
suggestions, please let me know. I will create a BP for this problem.

Thanks!

Shixiong


Shixiong Shang

!--- Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish ---!


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Privacy extension

2014-05-16 Thread Martinx - ジェームズ
Precisely Anthony! We talked about this topic (Non-NAT Floating IPv6)
here, on the following thread:

--
[openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Idea: Floating IPv6 - Without any kind of
NAT:
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-February/026871.html
--

:-D

About IPv6 Privacy Extensions, well, if it is too hard to implement, I
think that it can be postponed... And only the IPv6 self-generated by SLAAC
and previously calculated by Neutron itself (based on Instance's MAC
address), should be allowed to pass/work for now...

-
 Thiago


On 16 May 2014 12:12, Veiga, Anthony anthony_ve...@cable.comcast.comwrote:

  I’ll take this one a step further.  I think one of the methods for
 getting (non-NAT) floating IPs in IPv6 would be to push a new, extra
 address to the same port.  Either by crafting an extra, unicast RA to the
 specific VM or providing multiple IA_NA fields in the DHCPv6 transaction.
  This would require multiple addresses to be allowed on a single MAC.
 -Anthony

   From: Martinx - ジェームズ thiagocmarti...@gmail.com
 Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
 openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 Date: Thursday, May 15, 2014 at 14:18
 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
 openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Privacy extension

   Hello!

  I agree that there is no need for Privacy Extensions in a Cloud
 environment, since MAC address are fake... No big deal...

  Nevertheless, I think that should be nice to allow 1 Instance to have
 more than 1 IPv6 addr, since IPv6 is (almost) virtually unlimited... This
 way, a VM with, for example, a range of IPv6s to it, can have a shared host
 environment when each website have its own IPv6 address (I prefer to use
 IP-Based virtualhosts on Apache, instead of Name-Based)...

  Cheers!
 Thiago


 On 15 May 2014 14:22, Ian Wells ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk wrote:

  I was just about to respond to that in the session when we ran out of
 time.  I would vote for simply insisting that VMs run without the privacy
 extension enabled, and only permitting the expected ipv6 address based on
 MAC.  Its primary purpose is to conceal your MAC address so that your IP
 address can't be used to track you, as I understand it, and I don't think
 that's as relevant in a cloud environment and where the MAC addresses are
 basically fake.  Someone interested in desktop virtualisation with
 Openstack may wish to contradict me...
  --
  Ian.


  On 15 May 2014 09:30, Shixiong Shang sparkofwisdom.cl...@gmail.comwrote:

  Hi, guys:

  Nice to meet with all of you in the technical session and design
 session. I mentioned the challenge of privacy extension in the meeting, but
 would like to hear your opinions of how to address the problem. If you have
 any comments or suggestions, please let me know. I will create a BP for
 this problem.

  Thanks!

  Shixiong


  *Shixiong Shang*

  *!--- Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish ---!*


  ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Privacy extension

2014-05-16 Thread Robert Li (baoli)
Dane put some notes on the session’s ether pad  to support multiple prefixes. 
Seem like this is really something that everyone want to support in openstack.

―Robert

On 5/16/14, 2:23 PM, Martinx - ジェ�`ムズ 
thiagocmarti...@gmail.commailto:thiagocmarti...@gmail.com wrote:

Precisely Anthony! We talked about this topic (Non-NAT Floating IPv6) here, 
on the following thread:

--
[openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Idea: Floating IPv6 - Without any kind of NAT:
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-February/026871.html
--

:-D

About IPv6 Privacy Extensions, well, if it is too hard to implement, I think 
that it can be postponed... And only the IPv6 self-generated by SLAAC and 
previously calculated by Neutron itself (based on Instance's MAC address), 
should be allowed to pass/work for now...

-
 Thiago


On 16 May 2014 12:12, Veiga, Anthony 
anthony_ve...@cable.comcast.commailto:anthony_ve...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
I’ll take this one a step further.  I think one of the methods for getting 
(non-NAT) floating IPs in IPv6 would be to push a new, extra address to the 
same port.  Either by crafting an extra, unicast RA to the specific VM or 
providing multiple IA_NA fields in the DHCPv6 transaction.  This would require 
multiple addresses to be allowed on a single MAC.
-Anthony

From: Martinx - ジェ�`ムズ 
thiagocmarti...@gmail.commailto:thiagocmarti...@gmail.com
Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: Thursday, May 15, 2014 at 14:18
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Privacy extension

Hello!

I agree that there is no need for Privacy Extensions in a Cloud environment, 
since MAC address are fake... No big deal...

Nevertheless, I think that should be nice to allow 1 Instance to have more than 
1 IPv6 addr, since IPv6 is (almost) virtually unlimited... This way, a VM with, 
for example, a range of IPv6s to it, can have a shared host environment when 
each website have its own IPv6 address (I prefer to use IP-Based virtualhosts 
on Apache, instead of Name-Based)...

Cheers!
Thiago


On 15 May 2014 14:22, Ian Wells 
ijw.ubu...@cack.org.ukmailto:ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk wrote:
I was just about to respond to that in the session when we ran out of time.  I 
would vote for simply insisting that VMs run without the privacy extension 
enabled, and only permitting the expected ipv6 address based on MAC.  Its 
primary purpose is to conceal your MAC address so that your IP address can't be 
used to track you, as I understand it, and I don't think that's as relevant in 
a cloud environment and where the MAC addresses are basically fake.  Someone 
interested in desktop virtualisation with Openstack may wish to contradict me...
--
Ian.


On 15 May 2014 09:30, Shixiong Shang 
sparkofwisdom.cl...@gmail.commailto:sparkofwisdom.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, guys:

Nice to meet with all of you in the technical session and design session. I 
mentioned the challenge of privacy extension in the meeting, but would like to 
hear your opinions of how to address the problem. If you have any comments or 
suggestions, please let me know. I will create a BP for this problem.

Thanks!

Shixiong


Shixiong Shang

!--- Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish ---!


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


[openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Privacy extension

2014-05-15 Thread Shixiong Shang
Hi, guys:

Nice to meet with all of you in the technical session and design session. I 
mentioned the challenge of privacy extension in the meeting, but would like to 
hear your opinions of how to address the problem. If you have any comments or 
suggestions, please let me know. I will create a BP for this problem.

Thanks!

Shixiong


Shixiong Shang

!--- Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish ---!

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Privacy extension

2014-05-15 Thread Ian Wells
I was just about to respond to that in the session when we ran out of
time.  I would vote for simply insisting that VMs run without the privacy
extension enabled, and only permitting the expected ipv6 address based on
MAC.  Its primary purpose is to conceal your MAC address so that your IP
address can't be used to track you, as I understand it, and I don't think
that's as relevant in a cloud environment and where the MAC addresses are
basically fake.  Someone interested in desktop virtualisation with
Openstack may wish to contradict me...
-- 
Ian.


On 15 May 2014 09:30, Shixiong Shang sparkofwisdom.cl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi, guys:

 Nice to meet with all of you in the technical session and design session.
 I mentioned the challenge of privacy extension in the meeting, but would
 like to hear your opinions of how to address the problem. If you have any
 comments or suggestions, please let me know. I will create a BP for this
 problem.

 Thanks!

 Shixiong


  *Shixiong Shang*

  *!--- Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish ---!*


 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Privacy extension

2014-05-15 Thread Martinx - ジェームズ
Hello!

I agree that there is no need for Privacy Extensions in a Cloud
environment, since MAC address are fake... No big deal...

Nevertheless, I think that should be nice to allow 1 Instance to have more
than 1 IPv6 addr, since IPv6 is (almost) virtually unlimited... This way, a
VM with, for example, a range of IPv6s to it, can have a shared host
environment when each website have its own IPv6 address (I prefer to use
IP-Based virtualhosts on Apache, instead of Name-Based)...

Cheers!
Thiago


On 15 May 2014 14:22, Ian Wells ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk wrote:

 I was just about to respond to that in the session when we ran out of
 time.  I would vote for simply insisting that VMs run without the privacy
 extension enabled, and only permitting the expected ipv6 address based on
 MAC.  Its primary purpose is to conceal your MAC address so that your IP
 address can't be used to track you, as I understand it, and I don't think
 that's as relevant in a cloud environment and where the MAC addresses are
 basically fake.  Someone interested in desktop virtualisation with
 Openstack may wish to contradict me...
 --
 Ian.


 On 15 May 2014 09:30, Shixiong Shang sparkofwisdom.cl...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hi, guys:

 Nice to meet with all of you in the technical session and design session.
 I mentioned the challenge of privacy extension in the meeting, but would
 like to hear your opinions of how to address the problem. If you have any
 comments or suggestions, please let me know. I will create a BP for this
 problem.

 Thanks!

 Shixiong


  *Shixiong Shang*

  *!--- Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish ---!*


 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev