Good idea, but a lot of things supported in advanced zone with KVM may not be supported in case of VMware, XenServer etc. The larger refactoring will need to account for how in various places checks exists how behaviors are enforced when the zone is basic or not, and what kind of impact will it have on non-KVM users using basic zone (if any) along with having an upgrade path for such users.
If the overall functionality is retained and a seamless upgrade path can be created a new major release 5.0 is not be necessary (that should be a different thread with inputs from various stakeholders on various topics). Wrt support of the next Java version, we'll need to consider the distro provided Java version for a long time Java8 will be supported [1] but newer versions Java 9/10 onwards are short-term non-LTS releases, debian testing/next don't even have openjdk-9/10 packages yet. [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/eol-135779.html - Rohit <https://cloudstack.apache.org> ________________________________ From: Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 8:26:40 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones For now I've created a Pull Request so we can have a discussion about it there: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2720 Wido On 06/21/2018 02:34 PM, Gabriel Beims Bräscher wrote: > +1 > > We have an empty page regarding 5.0 [1] in the Design documents section > [2]. It might be a good spot to sort out CloudStack 5.0 plans. > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/5.0+Design+Documents > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Design > > 2018-06-21 5:58 GMT-03:00 Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>: > >> well, that one is a good one to update, but there was a dedicated 5.0 page >> at some time. I think we can just use this from here on in and merge >> anything else in it when we find it ;) >> >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Rafael Weingärtner < >> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> This one [1]? >>> >>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Roadmap >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com >>> >>> 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.li...@gmail.com> >>>> 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.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> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <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> 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> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Daan >> > rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
