Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

nd current VR >>> integration. >>> >>>> >>>>> On 16/09/16, 11:59 PM, "Simon Weller" <swel...@ena.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think our other option is to take a real look at what it would take >>>>>> >>>&g

RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR Will, I think that would be very helpful to me at least and for posterity for sure. I am in the process of rolling out my first production deployment of Cloudstack so I have been busier than expected (plus I have been jumping back and fort

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

wn 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

n 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 > constan

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

t 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 &g

RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

ty Godsey > > -Original Message- > From: Matthew Smart [mailto:msm...@smartsoftwareinc.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 2:35 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR > > Thanks Will. That is the answer I expected tbh. Bu

RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 2:35 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR Thanks Will. That is the answer I expected tbh. But it never hurts to ask! Matthew Smart President Smart Software Solutions Inc. 108 S Pierre St. Pierre, SD 57501 Phone: (605) 280-

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

R 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?

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

tinct >>> 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

d 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 comple

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

le 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 12:2

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

>> > >> > >> >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 wo

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

king 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> > >Sen

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

tract 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, Sept

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

Angus paul.an...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue -Original Message- From: Syed Ahmed [mailto:sah...@cloudops.com] Sent: 19 September 2016 17:07 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

@shapeblue -Original Message- From: Syed Ahmed [mailto:sah...@cloudops.com] Sent: 19 September 2016 17:07 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR Hey Guys, Will and I had a discussion in the morning on around VyOS and I have an idea that could work, here me

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

; > Am Sonntag, den 18.09.2016, 15:19 + schrieb Marty Godsey: > > On this note I also mentioned pfsense earlier. > > > > www.pfsense.org > > > > > > Regards, > > Marty Godsey > > > > -Original Message- > > From: ilya [mailto:

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

  > > > 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 th

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

at >>>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>&g

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

m> 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 e

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

asks 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. > >> &g

RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

On this note I also mentioned pfsense earlier. www.pfsense.org Regards, Marty Godsey -Original Message- From: ilya [mailto:ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 1:09 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR Our options become

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

o maintain. >> >> >> - Si >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Marty Godsey <ma...@gonsource.com> >> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 12:24 PM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS]

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

rom: 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 woul

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

tev...@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 licensin

RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

ll 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

croservice 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! > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

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 - > > &

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

ing 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

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 > >> &

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

s.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://tr

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

f 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

erdata 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] Repla

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

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,

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

; 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: &g

RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

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 un

RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

] 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

RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

t; 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

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:

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

> 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 th

RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

gards, > 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 > > Cloudr

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

dsey > 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

RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

...@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

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" wrote: >Hi, > >Instead of replacing

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

sday, September 13, 2016 3:48 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR > > I can't seem to find any API documentation for CloudRouter. Maybe my > Google foo is weak. Has anyone else found any usable docs on that? > > *Will STEVENS* > Lead

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

I can't seem to find any API documentation for CloudRouter. Maybe my Google foo is weak. Has anyone else found any usable docs on that? *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ On Tue,

RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

] On Behalf Of Will Stevens Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 3:48 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR I can't seem to find any API documentation for CloudRouter. Maybe my Google foo is weak. Has anyone else found any usable docs on that? *Will STEVENS* Lead

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

_ >> From: Marty Godsey <ma...@gonsource.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 12:05 PM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR >> >> So it looks like we are eliminating CloudRouter. To m

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

gt; It's really (did I mention really) ugly. > > > From: Marty Godsey <ma...@gonsource.com> > Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 12:05 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR > > So it looks like we

RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

n > Behalf Of Will Stevens > Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 12:58 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR > > Judging from this, it does not look like IPSec is managed via the API > though: > https://cloudrouter.atlassian.net/wiki/display

RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

- From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Will Stevens Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 12:58 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR Judging from this, it does not look like IPSec is managed via the API tho

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

ah...@cloudops.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 12:49 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR > > Does CloudRouter provide VPN (site-site and client)? Looking from their > website I don't seem to find it. Also, missing is VV

RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

It does.. Its under Secure Connectivity. -Original Message- From: Syed Ahmed [mailto:sah...@cloudops.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 12:49 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR Does CloudRouter provide VPN (site-site and client)? Looking from

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

vice to test with. Specifically > I > > am > > > > looking to test IPv6 since I provide IPv6 /64 spaces to my customers > > and > > > I > > > > am having to provide it via an external router at the moment which > has > > a > > > > lot of manual config

RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

:43 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR +1 on cloudrouter. We have been looking at this as a potential replacement/addon to our existing VRs. On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com> wrote: > yes, technically we shoul

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

t; I > > > am having to provide it via an external router at the moment which has > a > > > lot of manual configurations. > > > > > > Let me know if I can help in anyway. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Will Ste

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

n external router at the moment which has a > > lot of manual configurations. > > > > Let me know if I can help in anyway. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Will Stevens [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 7:21

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

nt: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 7:21 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR > > Ya. If we go this way, I like the approach of building the integration and > putting it through its paces as a stand alone VR before we consider > replacing the old VR and

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

Ya. If we go this way, I like the approach of building the integration and putting it through its paces as a stand alone VR before we consider replacing the old VR and making it the default. On Sep 13, 2016 6:52 AM, "Jayapal Uradi" wrote: > Hi, > > Instead of

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

Ya. CloudRouter is interesting because it has a native api. For that reason it was brought up as an alternative to VyOS in our internal discussions. On Sep 13, 2016 5:23 AM, "Nux!" wrote: > Hi, > > I like the idea. > > Cloudrouter looks really promising, I'm not too keen on VyOS

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

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 - Original Message - > From: "Will Stevens" > To:

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

liamstev...@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 existe

RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

@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 liabili

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

John, When you say to decompose the services to multiple containers? Where do you envision the containers be running? Surely, they must be running in some VM running on top of the hypervisor otherwise you would not be able to support all hypervisors. Now the question is, does each individual

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

Those are fair points John. I was going down the thought process of "if we have a VR, let's use an existing proven technology and not build our own". I think ACS needs an easy-to-use, out-of-the box default which anyone can use without having to think too much about it. It would be great if it

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

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 wrote: > > Will, > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR

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