On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > On 03 Feb 2014, at 19:45, Karl Harris <karl.har...@sungard.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> > >> On 03 Feb 2014, at 18:03, Karl Harris <karl.har...@sungard.com> wrote: > >> > >>> After discussion with my colleagues questions about initial > >>> configuration of the open network redundant routers and the > >>> applicability of the existing bash scripts (cloud-early-config) to the > >>> setup of VPC redundant routers have generated. > >>> > >>> > >>> Some setup first: In the bash script cloud-early-config there is a > >>> function named setup_redundant_router which makes copies of several > >>> template files. The template files are used to configure keepalived > >>> and conntrackd. The template copies are edited, via sed editor, using > >>> environment variables ($ROUTER_PR, $ETH0_IP,$NAME, etc.) which are > >>> obtained from the kernel of the current running linux image using the > >>> virtual file system /proc/cmdline. > >>> > >>> I'm sure keepalived and conntrackd can be used for starting and > >>> control of VPC redundant routers. However the setup of keepalived and > >>> conntrackd for VPC needs setup parameters which are dynamic because a > >>> VPC can have N number of redundant router pairs, not just the fixed > >>> number parsed from proc/cmdline in the running kernel. > >>> > >>> Am I correct in this analysis? > >> Karl, I think not. There is only one router in a vac, it routes for all > >> networks in the virtual private cloud. Am I misreading your description. > > > > Ok then a VPC should contain a single router containing N+1 (N+2 if > using a > > VPN connection) nic's? Where N is the number of private networks. > And I would like to see N+3 as it will allocate another when a private > gateway is defined. That is why I proposed to pre-allocate this nic to be > able to predict mic-ids, i.e. eth<#>. > > > > > If so then my original question still holds in the sense that the nic's > > need to be created in the VM kernel based on the number of private > networks > > desired? > > Yes > > > I found the method update_System_Vm_Templates in the jar file > > Upgrade410to420 in cloud-engine-schema/src/com/cloud/upgrade/dao which > > seems to point to a set of pre-configured VM images. > I can not find the method you describe but these preconfigured images are > the ones used for all the system vms. That would be secondary storage vms, > console proxy vms and indeed the router vms. > > Based on the discussion above the the configuration part of the VPC redundant router is: 1. Collecting the correct data required to configure the nics. (Is this part already in the VPC setup code? I will look for it, pointers will be helpful.) 2. Based on the hypervisor/vm types configure the nic(s) on the router VM using the data collected above (Same question as in 1 above is this code already in place?). My guess is to start with a preconfigured template and configure the vm based on the number of nics and any other appropriate data. 3. Configuring conntrackd and keepalived after the router vm (nics) have been configured and the router(s) started or restarted? I still need to work through this. > > >> > >>> If so, given the dynamic nature of the VPC redundant router > >>> configurations: Is using a setup_VPC_redundant_router bash function, > >>> similar to the existing open network function mentioned above, the > >>> most appropriate way to setup the keepalived or conntrackd > >>> configuration files for VPC redundant routers in the > >>> cloud-early-script? It seems to me reading the parameters from the > >>> kernel will require a unwieldy set of kernels to match the N private > >>> network redundant router pairs configured by the enduser. > >>> > >>> > >>> Comments, questions, clarifications? > >> > >>> > >>> Karl > >>> > >>> > >>> In the bash script ea > >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Daan Hoogland < > daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>> good reason to skip it for a next version, let's look into it anyway, > >>>> as we don't want to burn any of our ships. > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Karl Harris <karl.har...@sungard.com > > > >> wrote: > >>>>> All, > >>>>> > >>>>> At first redundant DHCP seemed like a good idea. I did some cursory > >>>>> research and the more I read the more I'm convinced it may be > >>>>> more trouble than its worth for the first implementation. I'll talk > >>>>> with some of our Systems Engineer's here and get a broader > >>>>> perspective. > >>>>> > >>>>> There seems to be only a single implementation of an open source DHCP > >>>>> server that will handle the synchronization required for redundant > >>>>> servers. > >>>>> > >>>>> Karl > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Daan Hoogland < > >> daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Saurav, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Not sure how this happens now, but it is definateluy something we > >>>>>> want. For the static conf files it won't be much of a problem. The > >>>>>> firewall/loadbalences won't be much of a problem, they are fire and > >>>>>> forget configurations of the ms that can just be sent to both. The > >>>>>> dhcp is a challange. I am not sure if it is solved for the plain rvr > >>>>>> now but it should be solved for that as well. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Saurav Lahiri > >>>>>> <saurav.lah...@sungard.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> Daan, > >>>>>>> I was wondering if you had not shared your thoughts, but looks like > >> I had > >>>>>>> missed your mail. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I agree that redundant dhcp or dns would be good to have. What I > >> meant was, > >>>>>>> it appears that by just enabling RVR there is no way to auto > sync > >>>>>>> configuration between the master and slave nodes with regard to > >> dhcp, > >>>>>>> loadbalancer and firewall(specifically the dhcp lease file, > >> haproxy,cfg and > >>>>>>> iptables configuration). So just enabling RVR does not ensure high > >>>>>>> availability for these services. Is there a way cloudstack > autosyncs > >>>>>>> configuration? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For the routing portion this is not an issue as the participating > >> routers > >>>>>>> learn the route through known protocols. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>> Saurav > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:37 AM, Daan Hoogland < > >> daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Saurav, I don't see why you can't benefit from having other > services > >>>>>>>> redundant as well. Vpn might be a problem as the source ip of a > >>>>>>>> redundant router pair on a vpn might give a problem (maybe there > is > >> an > >>>>>>>> implementation) but why wouldn't you want redundant dhcp or dns > >>>>>>>> services? As I understand it these are used at Schuberg Philis at > >> the > >>>>>>>> moment. will double check when I get a chance. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> regards, > >>>>>>>> Daan > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Saurav Lahiri > >>>>>>>> <saurav.lah...@sungard.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Daan, > >>>>>>>>> So looking at what is available today for guest network, the > >> Redundant VR > >>>>>>>>> can be enabled only for the source nat service. I guess the > >> mention of > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> source nat router is in relation to that. I could be wrong > though. > >> It > >>>>>>>>> appears that the other services like vpn, dhcp, dns do not > >> benefit much > >>>>>>>>> from the RVR capability. Can you clarify if thats correct? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>> Saurav > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Karl Harris < > >> karl.har...@sungard.com > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>>>>>>>>> From: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:51 PM > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: rvr4vpc > >>>>>>>>>> To: Karl Harris <karl.har...@sungard.com> > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: Christopher Litsinger <christopher.litsi...@sungard.com> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> H Karl, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing. I didn't want to initiate this but I > >> encourage you > >>>>>>>>>> to share this on the dev list (not in jira) as things are only > >>>>>>>>>> considered 'discussed' if they passed by there. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You speak of '1 Get configuration data on Source Nat Router', I > >> don't > >>>>>>>>>> understand why you call the router by this designation. 'Source > >> Nat' > >>>>>>>>>> is only one of it's many possible functions. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Apart from the design principles I shared with you I have so far > >> only > >>>>>>>>>> a technical implementation detail so far. That is to reserve the > >>>>>>>>>> (eth2) interface for the private gateway on the vpc (r)vr. This > >> way > >>>>>>>>>> the inteface to configure are somewhat predictable. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> As for the design principle to have a statefull router (reboot > >> proof) > >>>>>>>>>> the idea is to implement a configuration file that will be > >> uploaded to > >>>>>>>>>> the router after which a self-config command is send that will > >>>>>>>>>> implement the details of configuring the interfaces, haproxy and > >>>>>>>>>> keepalived and maybe more. I think your current assessment of > the > >>>>>>>>>> working of the RVRs is accurate but it will not be workable for > an > >>>>>>>>>> implementation for vpc's as they have an unpreditable number of > >>>>>>>>>> interfaces. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> to bad you can't make it next thursday, > >>>>>>>>>> Daan Hoogland > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Karl Harris < > >> karl.har...@sungard.com> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Daan, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the delayed response but as Christopher mentioned to > >> you in > >>>>>>>> his > >>>>>>>>>>> email I am getting my head around the CloudStack software. > >>>>>>>>>>> Since I am new to CloudStack but "old" to enterprise level JAVA > >> the > >>>>>>>> task > >>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>> large but not impossible. I have no experience with running > >> CloudStack > >>>>>>>>>> but > >>>>>>>>>>> considerable experience designing and maintaining large JAVA > >>>>>>>>>> applications. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I've created what I believe is a very high level abstract of > how > >> the > >>>>>>>>>> current > >>>>>>>>>>> guest VRR's are created for guest networks with the intent of > >> making > >>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>> abstract > >>>>>>>>>>> more detailed. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 1 Get configuration data on Source Nat Router selected as a > >> redundant > >>>>>>>>>>> router > >>>>>>>>>>> 1.1 Public and Guest network identified. > >>>>>>>>>>> 2 Both routers are provisioned > >>>>>>>>>>> 2.1 Software trys different, > >> regions(?),zones,pods,clusters,hosts > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>> that order as the location of the router. Log maximum > "distance" > >>>>>>>> apart. > >>>>>>>>>>> 3 Keepalived is configured > >>>>>>>>>>> 4 Both routers are started > >>>>>>>>>>> 5 Keepalived is started > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Obviously there is much more that is happening under each of > the > >> steps > >>>>>>>>>>> above. My intent is to complete this detailed "as is" listing > as > >> much > >>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>> can. Then using the "as is" description/sequence > >>>>>>>>>>> make a "to-be" addition for VPC's. When I get a consensus on > WHAT > >>>>>>>> needs > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> be implemented for the VRR in VPC then develop HOW best to > >> implement > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> "to-be" addition with the > >>>>>>>>>>> existing JAVA code as well as what additional classes need to > be > >>>>>>>>>>> extended/implemented/created. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Comments, critiques and changes to the above sequence are > >> encouraged. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I plan on posting this to the dev-list/Jira very soon. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I have been using this functional spec as a guide, after > >> discussing > >>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>> with our Systems Engineering people this spec meets our > >> requirements. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you have an implementation in mind? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> We have an internal Cloud Meeting with conflicts with the > >> cloudstack > >>>>>>>>>> "day" > >>>>>>>>>>> next week so I will not be in attendence. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Karl > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Daan Hoogland < > >>>>>>>> daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello overthere in the states, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorow I will start some experimenting with redundant vpc > >> routers. > >>>>>>>>>>>> This is to check up on any findings and requirements that you > >> might > >>>>>>>>>>>> have on this. Once again I would not like to waste work on > this > >> as it > >>>>>>>>>>>> is really a globally usable feature that is probably > universal. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> please let me know your status on this. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> If any of you are coming to the cloudstack day in London next > >> week, > >>>>>>>>>>>> let's meetup next thursday. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> kind regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Daan Hoogland > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> Karl O. Harris > >>>>>>>>>>> Cloud Software Engineer > >>>>>>>>>>> Sungard Availability Services > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> Karl O. Harris > >>>>>>>>>> Cloud Software Engineer > >>>>>>>>>> Sungard Availability Services > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Karl O. Harris > >>>>> Cloud Software Engineer > >>>>> Sungard Availability Services > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Karl O. Harris > >>> Cloud Software Engineer > >>> Sungard Availability Services > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Karl O. Harris > > Cloud Software Engineer > > Sungard Availability Services > > -- Karl O. Harris Cloud Software Engineer Sungard Availability Services
