osdir.com

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

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


I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1 VLAN for
everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with VLAN
isolation requires several VLANs to get going.

How would we cover this use case?

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike <Mike.Tutkowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> 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?
>
>         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
>         >>>>
>         >>>
>         >>>
>         >>>
>
>
>
>
>