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.tutkow...@netapp.com <mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com>> 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.tutkow...@netapp.com
> <mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com>> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
>
> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <w...@widodh.nl
> <mailto:w...@widodh.nl>> 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
> <w...@widodh.nl <mailto:w...@widodh.nl>> 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
> <w...@widodh.nl <mailto:w...@widodh.nl>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
>
>
