[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 08:42 PM, ilya musayev wrote:
> 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.
> 

Does it? I have Advanced Networking running with just vlan://untagged as
a broadcast domain.

Using VLAN 0 would be exactly the same since that's the default VLAN.

> How would we cover this use case?
> 

By using 'untagged' as the VLAN number, don't we?

Wido

> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike
> <Mike.Tutkowski@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
>     <mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
>         Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
> 
>         On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <wido@xxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>             >>>>
>             >>>
>             >>>
>             >>>
> 
> 
> 
>