Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Blueprint Bind dnsmasq in qrouter- namespace
Hello Stackers! I agree with one namespace approach, if it is better for IPv6 (or even for IPv4 and for operators). And also, I think that, when with IPv6, we must do what is better for IPv6 networks... If things needs to be changed, lets do it! BTW, one namespace with all the required services on it, makes more sense to me either, this way, OpenStack can focus on namespace = tenant router, with dhcp, dhcpv6, RA, filter, IPv4 NAT, etc, on it... Just like a real world router... OpenStack approach to present the Linux Namespace as a router to tenants is awesome by itself! Operators can learn the new way of doing things, now with IPv6, it can be simpler! No NAT tables, pure routing, less namespaces to deal with, VXLAN seems to work better when with IPv6 (nephos6 PDF have some notes about it)... I'm wondering about starting millions of tiny Docker Instances, each one with its own public IPv6 address! This will be epic! :-D What about a Floating IP for IPv6?! I think we can provide a IPv6 Floating IP (without any kind NAT, of course), so, this Floating IPv6 address will appear *within* the attached Instance, instead of within its namespace router, as it is with IPv4 (a NAT rule at the namespace router). What do you guys think about this idea? This way, the namespace router will be used to configure/deliver more IPv6 address for each Instance. Another idea is: the Tenant IPv6 Namespace Router should provide a way (I think), to deliver a range of IPv6 address (if possible), not only 1 per Instance. This way, a Instance can have hundreds of web sites (Apache, NGinx), each one with its own public IP (I prefer this Apache setup: IP-Based http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/vhosts/ip-based.html), because I really like the idea of 1 public IP for each website, but not 1 Instance for each website (perhaps with Docker it will be okay to have 1 Instance per website). Sorry to throw lots of subjects, I don't want to hijack the thread but, the namespaces does lots of things anyway... =P NOTE: Can I start testing IPv6 tenant networks with Neutron 2014.1~b1 from Ubuntu 14.04?! Cheers! Thiago On 19 December 2013 23:31, Shixiong Shang sparkofwisdom.cl...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, Ian: The use case brought by Comcast team today during the ipv6 sub-team meeting actually proved the point I made here, instead of against it. If I didn’t explain it clearly in my previous email, here it is. I was questioning the design with two namespaces and I believe we can use a SINGLE namespace as the common container to host two services, i.e. DHCP and ROUTING. If your use case needs DHCP instance, but not ROUTING, then just launch dnsmasq in THE namespace with qr- interface; If your use case needs default GW, then add qg- interface in THE namespace. Whether it is called qdhcp or qrouter, I don’t care. It is just a label. People follow the routine to use it, simply because this is what OpenStack offers. But my question is, why? And why NOT we design the system in the way that qg- and qr- interface collocate in the same namespace? It is because we intentionally separate the service, now the system become clumsy and less efficient. As you can see in IPv6 cases, we are forced to deal with two namespaces now. It just doesn’t make any sense. Shixiong On Dec 19, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Ian Wells ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk wrote: Per the discussions this evening, we did identify a reason why you might need a dhcp namespace for v6 - because networks don't actually have to have routers. It's clear you need an agent in the router namespace for RAs and another one in the DHCP namespace for when the network's not connected to a router, though. We've not pinned down all the API details yet, but the plan is to implement an RA agent first, responding to subnets that router is attached to (which is very close to what Randy and Shixiong have already done). -- Ian. On 19 December 2013 14:01, Randy Tuttle randy.m.tut...@gmail.com wrote: First, dnsmasq is not being moved. Instead, it's a different instance for the attached subnet in the qrouter namespace. If it's not in the qrouter namespace, the default gateway (the local router interface) will be the interface of qdhcp namespace interface. That will cause blackhole for traffic from VM. As you know, routing tables and NAT all occur in qrouter namespace. So we want the RA to contain the local interface as default gateway in qrouter namespace Randy Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2013, at 4:05 AM, Xuhan Peng pengxu...@gmail.com wrote: I am reading through the blueprint created by Randy to bind dnsmasq into qrouter- namespace: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dnsmasq-bind-into-qrouter-namespace I don't think I can follow the reason that we need to change the namespace which contains dnsmasq process and the device it listens to from qdhcp- to qrouter-. Why the original namespace design conflicts with the Router Advertisement sending
[openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Blueprint Bind dnsmasq in qrouter- namespace
I am reading through the blueprint created by Randy to bind dnsmasq into qrouter- namespace: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dnsmasq-bind-into-qrouter-namespace I don't think I can follow the reason that we need to change the namespace which contains dnsmasq process and the device it listens to from qdhcp- to qrouter-. Why the original namespace design conflicts with the Router Advertisement sending from dnsmasq for SLAAC? From the attached POC result link, the reason is stated as: Even if the dnsmasq process could send Router Advertisement, the default gateway would bind to its own link-local address in the qdhcp- namespace. As a result, traffic leaving tenant network will be drawn to DHCP interface, instead of gateway port on router. That is not desirable! Can Randy or Shixiong explain this more? Thanks! Xuhan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Blueprint Bind dnsmasq in qrouter- namespace
First, dnsmasq is not being moved. Instead, it's a different instance for the attached subnet in the qrouter namespace. If it's not in the qrouter namespace, the default gateway (the local router interface) will be the interface of qdhcp namespace interface. That will cause blackhole for traffic from VM. As you know, routing tables and NAT all occur in qrouter namespace. So we want the RA to contain the local interface as default gateway in qrouter namespace Randy Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2013, at 4:05 AM, Xuhan Peng pengxu...@gmail.com wrote: I am reading through the blueprint created by Randy to bind dnsmasq into qrouter- namespace: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dnsmasq-bind-into-qrouter-namespace I don't think I can follow the reason that we need to change the namespace which contains dnsmasq process and the device it listens to from qdhcp- to qrouter-. Why the original namespace design conflicts with the Router Advertisement sending from dnsmasq for SLAAC? From the attached POC result link, the reason is stated as: Even if the dnsmasq process could send Router Advertisement, the default gateway would bind to its own link-local address in the qdhcp- namespace. As a result, traffic leaving tenant network will be drawn to DHCP interface, instead of gateway port on router. That is not desirable! Can Randy or Shixiong explain this more? Thanks! Xuhan ___ 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] Blueprint Bind dnsmasq in qrouter- namespace
Hi, Xuhan: Thanks for reaching out to us for questions! Here are the summary of several key points: 1. Currently dnsmasq is bound to the ns- interface within qdhcp- namespace. If we continue to use this model, then the announced RA has to use the ns- interface’s link-local address as source, based on standards. 2. When VM receives this RA, it will install default gateway pointing to the ns- interface based on standards. In other words, VM will send packets destined to other subnets to ns- interface. 3. However, outbound traffic should be sent to qr- interface, which is created to act as the default gateway for tenant network. 4. In addition, the qdhcp- namespace has no IPv6 route installed. So traffic will be blackholed. I initially thought about getting rid of entire qdhcp- namespace and only use qrouter namespace. I poked around and nobody could explain to me why we need two separate namespaces. In my opinions, I don’t see the clear value of qdhcp- namespace…... Maybe I overlooked something. But on the second thought, we decided to launch dnsmasq in qrouter- namespace and keep IPv4 dnsmasq in qdhcp- namespace since we didn’t know what else might break. Please let us know if you have any further questions! Thanks! Shixiong On Dec 19, 2013, at 4:05 AM, Xuhan Peng pengxu...@gmail.com wrote: I am reading through the blueprint created by Randy to bind dnsmasq into qrouter- namespace: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dnsmasq-bind-into-qrouter-namespace I don't think I can follow the reason that we need to change the namespace which contains dnsmasq process and the device it listens to from qdhcp- to qrouter-. Why the original namespace design conflicts with the Router Advertisement sending from dnsmasq for SLAAC? From the attached POC result link, the reason is stated as: Even if the dnsmasq process could send Router Advertisement, the default gateway would bind to its own link-local address in the qdhcp- namespace. As a result, traffic leaving tenant network will be drawn to DHCP interface, instead of gateway port on router. That is not desirable! Can Randy or Shixiong explain this more? Thanks! Xuhan ___ 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] Blueprint Bind dnsmasq in qrouter- namespace
Per the discussions this evening, we did identify a reason why you might need a dhcp namespace for v6 - because networks don't actually have to have routers. It's clear you need an agent in the router namespace for RAs and another one in the DHCP namespace for when the network's not connected to a router, though. We've not pinned down all the API details yet, but the plan is to implement an RA agent first, responding to subnets that router is attached to (which is very close to what Randy and Shixiong have already done). -- Ian. On 19 December 2013 14:01, Randy Tuttle randy.m.tut...@gmail.com wrote: First, dnsmasq is not being moved. Instead, it's a different instance for the attached subnet in the qrouter namespace. If it's not in the qrouter namespace, the default gateway (the local router interface) will be the interface of qdhcp namespace interface. That will cause blackhole for traffic from VM. As you know, routing tables and NAT all occur in qrouter namespace. So we want the RA to contain the local interface as default gateway in qrouter namespace Randy Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2013, at 4:05 AM, Xuhan Peng pengxu...@gmail.com wrote: I am reading through the blueprint created by Randy to bind dnsmasq into qrouter- namespace: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dnsmasq-bind-into-qrouter-namespace I don't think I can follow the reason that we need to change the namespace which contains dnsmasq process and the device it listens to from qdhcp- to qrouter-. Why the original namespace design conflicts with the Router Advertisement sending from dnsmasq for SLAAC? From the attached POC result link, the reason is stated as: Even if the dnsmasq process could send Router Advertisement, the default gateway would bind to its own link-local address in the qdhcp- namespace. As a result, traffic leaving tenant network will be drawn to DHCP interface, instead of gateway port on router. That is not desirable! Can Randy or Shixiong explain this more? Thanks! Xuhan ___ 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] Blueprint Bind dnsmasq in qrouter- namespace
Hi, Ian: The use case brought by Comcast team today during the ipv6 sub-team meeting actually proved the point I made here, instead of against it. If I didn’t explain it clearly in my previous email, here it is. I was questioning the design with two namespaces and I believe we can use a SINGLE namespace as the common container to host two services, i.e. DHCP and ROUTING. If your use case needs DHCP instance, but not ROUTING, then just launch dnsmasq in THE namespace with qr- interface; If your use case needs default GW, then add qg- interface in THE namespace. Whether it is called qdhcp or qrouter, I don’t care. It is just a label. People follow the routine to use it, simply because this is what OpenStack offers. But my question is, why? And why NOT we design the system in the way that qg- and qr- interface collocate in the same namespace? It is because we intentionally separate the service, now the system become clumsy and less efficient. As you can see in IPv6 cases, we are forced to deal with two namespaces now. It just doesn’t make any sense. Shixiong On Dec 19, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Ian Wells ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk wrote: Per the discussions this evening, we did identify a reason why you might need a dhcp namespace for v6 - because networks don't actually have to have routers. It's clear you need an agent in the router namespace for RAs and another one in the DHCP namespace for when the network's not connected to a router, though. We've not pinned down all the API details yet, but the plan is to implement an RA agent first, responding to subnets that router is attached to (which is very close to what Randy and Shixiong have already done). -- Ian. On 19 December 2013 14:01, Randy Tuttle randy.m.tut...@gmail.com wrote: First, dnsmasq is not being moved. Instead, it's a different instance for the attached subnet in the qrouter namespace. If it's not in the qrouter namespace, the default gateway (the local router interface) will be the interface of qdhcp namespace interface. That will cause blackhole for traffic from VM. As you know, routing tables and NAT all occur in qrouter namespace. So we want the RA to contain the local interface as default gateway in qrouter namespace Randy Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2013, at 4:05 AM, Xuhan Peng pengxu...@gmail.com wrote: I am reading through the blueprint created by Randy to bind dnsmasq into qrouter- namespace: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dnsmasq-bind-into-qrouter-namespace I don't think I can follow the reason that we need to change the namespace which contains dnsmasq process and the device it listens to from qdhcp- to qrouter-. Why the original namespace design conflicts with the Router Advertisement sending from dnsmasq for SLAAC? From the attached POC result link, the reason is stated as: Even if the dnsmasq process could send Router Advertisement, the default gateway would bind to its own link-local address in the qdhcp- namespace. As a result, traffic leaving tenant network will be drawn to DHCP interface, instead of gateway port on router. That is not desirable! Can Randy or Shixiong explain this more? Thanks! Xuhan ___ 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] Blueprint Bind dnsmasq in qrouter- namespace
Shixiong, I know you must have a typo in the 3rd paragraph. I think maybe you mean to include the ns- interface in that list. So why not have qg- qr- and ns- interfaces in the same namespace. Am I right? Rnady On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Shixiong Shang sparkofwisdom.cl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Ian: The use case brought by Comcast team today during the ipv6 sub-team meeting actually proved the point I made here, instead of against it. If I didn’t explain it clearly in my previous email, here it is. I was questioning the design with two namespaces and I believe we can use a SINGLE namespace as the common container to host two services, i.e. DHCP and ROUTING. If your use case needs DHCP instance, but not ROUTING, then just launch dnsmasq in THE namespace with qr- interface; If your use case needs default GW, then add qg- interface in THE namespace. Whether it is called qdhcp or qrouter, I don’t care. It is just a label. People follow the routine to use it, simply because this is what OpenStack offers. But my question is, why? And why NOT we design the system in the way that qg- and qr- interface collocate in the same namespace? It is because we intentionally separate the service, now the system become clumsy and less efficient. As you can see in IPv6 cases, we are forced to deal with two namespaces now. It just doesn’t make any sense. Shixiong On Dec 19, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Ian Wells ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk wrote: Per the discussions this evening, we did identify a reason why you might need a dhcp namespace for v6 - because networks don't actually have to have routers. It's clear you need an agent in the router namespace for RAs and another one in the DHCP namespace for when the network's not connected to a router, though. We've not pinned down all the API details yet, but the plan is to implement an RA agent first, responding to subnets that router is attached to (which is very close to what Randy and Shixiong have already done). -- Ian. On 19 December 2013 14:01, Randy Tuttle randy.m.tut...@gmail.com wrote: First, dnsmasq is not being moved. Instead, it's a different instance for the attached subnet in the qrouter namespace. If it's not in the qrouter namespace, the default gateway (the local router interface) will be the interface of qdhcp namespace interface. That will cause blackhole for traffic from VM. As you know, routing tables and NAT all occur in qrouter namespace. So we want the RA to contain the local interface as default gateway in qrouter namespace Randy Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2013, at 4:05 AM, Xuhan Peng pengxu...@gmail.com wrote: I am reading through the blueprint created by Randy to bind dnsmasq into qrouter- namespace: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dnsmasq-bind-into-qrouter-namespace I don't think I can follow the reason that we need to change the namespace which contains dnsmasq process and the device it listens to from qdhcp- to qrouter-. Why the original namespace design conflicts with the Router Advertisement sending from dnsmasq for SLAAC? From the attached POC result link, the reason is stated as: Even if the dnsmasq process could send Router Advertisement, the default gateway would bind to its own link-local address in the qdhcp- namespace. As a result, traffic leaving tenant network will be drawn to DHCP interface, instead of gateway port on router. That is not desirable! Can Randy or Shixiong explain this more? Thanks! Xuhan ___ 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 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Blueprint Bind dnsmasq in qrouter- namespace
Hi, Randy: Thanks a bunch for pointing it out! Yup, you are absolutely right. What I wanted to say is why not put qg-, qr-, and ns- interfaces in the single namespace. I typed it on my small keyboard on iPhone. Sorry for the confusion. :( Shixiong On Dec 19, 2013, at 8:44 PM, Randy Tuttle randy.m.tut...@gmail.com wrote: Shixiong, I know you must have a typo in the 3rd paragraph. I think maybe you mean to include the ns- interface in that list. So why not have qg- qr- and ns- interfaces in the same namespace. Am I right? Rnady On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Shixiong Shang sparkofwisdom.cl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Ian: The use case brought by Comcast team today during the ipv6 sub-team meeting actually proved the point I made here, instead of against it. If I didn’t explain it clearly in my previous email, here it is. I was questioning the design with two namespaces and I believe we can use a SINGLE namespace as the common container to host two services, i.e. DHCP and ROUTING. If your use case needs DHCP instance, but not ROUTING, then just launch dnsmasq in THE namespace with qr- interface; If your use case needs default GW, then add qg- interface in THE namespace. Whether it is called qdhcp or qrouter, I don’t care. It is just a label. People follow the routine to use it, simply because this is what OpenStack offers. But my question is, why? And why NOT we design the system in the way that qg- and qr- interface collocate in the same namespace? It is because we intentionally separate the service, now the system become clumsy and less efficient. As you can see in IPv6 cases, we are forced to deal with two namespaces now. It just doesn’t make any sense. Shixiong On Dec 19, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Ian Wells ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk wrote: Per the discussions this evening, we did identify a reason why you might need a dhcp namespace for v6 - because networks don't actually have to have routers. It's clear you need an agent in the router namespace for RAs and another one in the DHCP namespace for when the network's not connected to a router, though. We've not pinned down all the API details yet, but the plan is to implement an RA agent first, responding to subnets that router is attached to (which is very close to what Randy and Shixiong have already done). -- Ian. On 19 December 2013 14:01, Randy Tuttle randy.m.tut...@gmail.com wrote: First, dnsmasq is not being moved. Instead, it's a different instance for the attached subnet in the qrouter namespace. If it's not in the qrouter namespace, the default gateway (the local router interface) will be the interface of qdhcp namespace interface. That will cause blackhole for traffic from VM. As you know, routing tables and NAT all occur in qrouter namespace. So we want the RA to contain the local interface as default gateway in qrouter namespace Randy Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2013, at 4:05 AM, Xuhan Peng pengxu...@gmail.com wrote: I am reading through the blueprint created by Randy to bind dnsmasq into qrouter- namespace: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dnsmasq-bind-into-qrouter-namespace I don't think I can follow the reason that we need to change the namespace which contains dnsmasq process and the device it listens to from qdhcp- to qrouter-. Why the original namespace design conflicts with the Router Advertisement sending from dnsmasq for SLAAC? From the attached POC result link, the reason is stated as: Even if the dnsmasq process could send Router Advertisement, the default gateway would bind to its own link-local address in the qdhcp- namespace. As a result, traffic leaving tenant network will be drawn to DHCP interface, instead of gateway port on router. That is not desirable! Can Randy or Shixiong explain this more? Thanks! Xuhan ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] Blueprint Bind dnsmasq in qrouter- namespace
Interesting. So you're suggesting we provision a single namespace (per network, rather than subnet?) proactively, and use it for both routing and DHCP. Not unreasonable. Also workable for v4, I think? -- Ian. On 20 December 2013 02:31, Shixiong Shang sparkofwisdom.cl...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, Ian: The use case brought by Comcast team today during the ipv6 sub-team meeting actually proved the point I made here, instead of against it. If I didn’t explain it clearly in my previous email, here it is. I was questioning the design with two namespaces and I believe we can use a SINGLE namespace as the common container to host two services, i.e. DHCP and ROUTING. If your use case needs DHCP instance, but not ROUTING, then just launch dnsmasq in THE namespace with qr- interface; If your use case needs default GW, then add qg- interface in THE namespace. Whether it is called qdhcp or qrouter, I don’t care. It is just a label. People follow the routine to use it, simply because this is what OpenStack offers. But my question is, why? And why NOT we design the system in the way that qg- and qr- interface collocate in the same namespace? It is because we intentionally separate the service, now the system become clumsy and less efficient. As you can see in IPv6 cases, we are forced to deal with two namespaces now. It just doesn’t make any sense. Shixiong On Dec 19, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Ian Wells ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk wrote: Per the discussions this evening, we did identify a reason why you might need a dhcp namespace for v6 - because networks don't actually have to have routers. It's clear you need an agent in the router namespace for RAs and another one in the DHCP namespace for when the network's not connected to a router, though. We've not pinned down all the API details yet, but the plan is to implement an RA agent first, responding to subnets that router is attached to (which is very close to what Randy and Shixiong have already done). -- Ian. On 19 December 2013 14:01, Randy Tuttle randy.m.tut...@gmail.com wrote: First, dnsmasq is not being moved. Instead, it's a different instance for the attached subnet in the qrouter namespace. If it's not in the qrouter namespace, the default gateway (the local router interface) will be the interface of qdhcp namespace interface. That will cause blackhole for traffic from VM. As you know, routing tables and NAT all occur in qrouter namespace. So we want the RA to contain the local interface as default gateway in qrouter namespace Randy Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2013, at 4:05 AM, Xuhan Peng pengxu...@gmail.com wrote: I am reading through the blueprint created by Randy to bind dnsmasq into qrouter- namespace: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dnsmasq-bind-into-qrouter-namespace I don't think I can follow the reason that we need to change the namespace which contains dnsmasq process and the device it listens to from qdhcp- to qrouter-. Why the original namespace design conflicts with the Router Advertisement sending from dnsmasq for SLAAC? From the attached POC result link, the reason is stated as: Even if the dnsmasq process could send Router Advertisement, the default gateway would bind to its own link-local address in the qdhcp- namespace. As a result, traffic leaving tenant network will be drawn to DHCP interface, instead of gateway port on router. That is not desirable! Can Randy or Shixiong explain this more? Thanks! Xuhan ___ 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 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
