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

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

Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have to break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)

On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mike.Tutkowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
    On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <wido@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
        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?
        >> 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