[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones


 +1

I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI though.
So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.

We all can help you with the UI. It is a little complicated at the
beginning because it is a JavaScript that generates HTML code. However, it
is doable.


On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike <Mike.Tutkowski@xxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:

> If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to bump
> CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>
> > On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <wido@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> >> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though I myself
> >> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a simple
> start
> >> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard for
> creating
> >> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and userdata,
> great.
> >
> > That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using VLAN
> > isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's basically
> > what Basic Networking does.
> >
> > It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
> >
> > If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced Networking
> > you get exactly the same result.
> >
> >> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by throwing at
> as
> >> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
> >
> > I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI though.
> > So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
> >
> > Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at the right
> > location and you're done.
> >
> > Wido
> >
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <wido@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently
> >>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a
> >>> shared network.
> >>>
> >>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking
> >>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor
> >>> does the Security Grouping.
> >>>
> >>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
> >>>
> >>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't
> >>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's
> >>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in
> >>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be
> >>> difficult.
> >>>
> >>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for
> ever
> >>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the
> >>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
> >>>
> >>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the
> >>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to
> test.
> >>>
> >>> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking
> >>> direction.
> >>>
> >>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and
> >>> that's progressing very good as well.
> >>>
> >>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the
> >>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping
> >>> it alive for existing users?
> >>>
> >>> Wido
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>



-- 
Rafael Weingärtner