osdir.com

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

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



On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
> 

That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you, this
might be a good time to bump it to 5.0

With that we would:

- Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
- Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
- Java 9?
- Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
- Other fancy stuff?
- Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly

How would that sound?

Wido

>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>