Ya know - thinking it through, Jayapal's feature is purely on the mgmt/IP tracking side, not the domr/instance side.
So, I'll back down and say run with that for now, we'll propose the user-data stuff as a separate feature. Sorry for confusion. John On Dec 18, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Kelcey Damage (BT) <kel...@backbonetechnology.com> wrote: > OK, > > I must have missed something, or made an invalid assumption. I thought the > MIPN could be handled by metadata and not need to be re-written. > > I also figured guest management could be handled separate and make use of > the metadata. > > If it requires a re-write down the road for what we are actively discussing > now, then it seems inefficient. Could we not find some sort of hybrid > solution, that would allow MIPN to move forward, but not potentially hinder > plans for CloudInit/guest management? > > Thanks > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Kinsella [mailto:j...@stratosec.co] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 11:05 AM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Functional Specification for the multiple IPs per NIC >> >> Well, not quite. The question I might be clearly asking is: Do we build > MIPN >> now with intention to rewrite, or do we update the metadata/user-data code >> first? >> >> On Dec 18, 2012, at 10:58 AM, "Kelcey Damage (BT)" >> <kel...@backbonetechnology.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I guess we are all in agreement them :) >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: John Kinsella [mailto:j...@stratosec.co] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:56 AM >>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>> Subject: Re: Functional Specification for the multiple IPs per NIC >>>> >>>> cloud-init's (more specifically, user-data) being mentioned because I >>>> see >>> an >>>> ongoing need of wanting to get instance-specific data into an instance. >>>> >>>> So, we can tweak meta-data to add support for multi-IP per NIC >>>> (MIPN), or we can take a step back and talk through how the metadata >>>> side of things could be beefed up before implementing MIPN to minimize >> future rewriting. >>>> >>>> The result is better compatibility with AWS, better security, and >>>> more standardized functionality going forward. >>>> >>>> Yes, this is a separate feature than the MIPN by itself. I meant to >>>> call >>> that out >>>> in my first bullet, apologies. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> On Dec 18, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Chiradeep Vittal >>>> <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sorry, not sure why cloud-init is being clubbed into this feature. >>>>> >>>>> The secondary ips can be made available through the usual metadata >>>> scheme. >>>>> >>>>> On 12/18/12 10:36 AM, "John Kinsella" <j...@stratosec.co> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Is there any logic behind 30? At some point, we're going to be >>>>>> asked, so I'd like to have a decent answer. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> On the rest of this, I'd like to get some level of consensus on the >>>>>> design. What looks best to me: >>>>>> * Improve UserData/CloudInit support in CloudStack (I'm willing to >>>>>> work on this, consider it important) - allow expiration of data, >>>>>> wider variety of data supported >>>>>> * Create the multi-IPs-per-NIC code to get IPs via CloudInit (Need >>>>>> to think through Windows equivalent) >>>>>> * Update the password changing script to use CloudInit >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? Or Jayapal have you already started work on the multi-IP >>>>>> feature? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 18, 2012, at 2:03 AM, Jayapal Reddy Uradi >>>>>> <jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding IP limit, it can be made as configurable using global >>>>>>> settings and default value will be 30. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Jayapal >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:59 PM >>>>>>>> To: CloudStack DeveloperList >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Functional Specification for the multiple IPs per >>>>>>>> NIC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In basic/shared networks the allocation is bounded by what is >>>>>>>> already >>>>>>>> "used- >>>>>>>> up". To prevent tenants from hogging all the available ips, there >>>>>>>> needs to be limits. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12/15/12 8:38 AM, "John Kinsella" <j...@stratosec.co> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd remove the limitation of having 30 IPs per interface. Modern >>>>>>>>> OSes can support way more. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why no support for basic networking? I can see a small hosting >>>>>>>>> provider with a basic setup wanting to manage web servers... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 14, 2012, at 9:37 AM, Jayapal Reddy Uradi >>>>>>>>> <jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Current guest VM by default having one NIC and one IP address >>>>>>>>>> assigned. >>>>>>>>>> If your wants extra IP for the guest VM, there no provision >>>>>>>>>> from the CS. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Using multiple IP address per NIC feature CS can associate IP >>>>>>>>>> address for the NIC, user can take that IP and assign it to the > VM. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please find the FS for the more details. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Multiple >>>>>>>>>> +I >>>>>>>>>> P+a >>>>>>>> dd >>>>>>>>>> res >>>>>>>>>> s+per+NIC >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please provide your comments on the FS. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> jayapal >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure as a Service >>>>>>>>> o: 415.315.9385 >>>>>>>>> @johnlkinsella >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure as a Service >>>>>> o: 415.315.9385 >>>>>> @johnlkinsella >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure as a Service >>>> o: 415.315.9385 >>>> @johnlkinsella >>> >>> >>> >> >> Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure as a Service >> o: 415.315.9385 >> @johnlkinsella > > > Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure as a Service o: 415.315.9385 @johnlkinsella
