git.net

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

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


This one [1]?

[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Roadmap

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Wido, there used to be a page on cwiki with plans for 5.0, I can not find
> it anymore but this should be added to it.
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, ilya musayev <
> ilya.mailing.lists@xxxxxxxxx>
> 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.
> >
> > 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
> >>         >>>>
> >>         >>>
> >>         >>>
> >>         >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>



-- 
Rafael Weingärtner